BELL COMPANY OF RI v. Cote

• Decision Date: 21 June 1956
• Docket Number: Ex. No. 9666.
• Parties: The BELL COMPANY OF R.I. v. Louis T. COTE, City Assessor.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

123 A.2d 400

The BELL COMPANY OF R.I. v. Louis T. COTE, City Assessor.

Ex. No. 9666.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 21, 1956.

Letts & Quinn, A. Peter Quinn, Jr., Providence, for petitioner.

Israel Rabinovitz, City Sol., Woonsocket, for respondent.

ANDREWS, Justice.

This petition was brought under general laws 1938, chapter 31, § 14, on the ground that the petitioner's real estate, mill property in the city of Woonsocket, on December 31, 1953 was assessed at a value in excess of the value at which it was assessed on the last preceding assessment day, and that said real estate was, on December 31, 1953, assessed at a value in excess of its full and fair cash value on that day.

The case was heard in the superior court by a justice thereof who rendered a decision for petitioner in an amount which is correct on the valuation which he placed upon the property. The respondent excepted to this decision and the case is here on that exception and two others taken during the course of the hearing. The facts will sufficiently appear in connection with our consideration of the exceptions.

The first exception is to the refusal of the trial justice to strike out certain testimony of John B. Carpenter, petitioner's real estate expert, as to sales in 1952 and 1954 of four other mill properties in Woonsocket. The respondent moved to strike this testimony on the ground that there was no evidence that these sales or any of them were sales in a fair market between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Evidence of the voluntary nature of a sale is often furnished by other witnesses, and later in the hearing this witness furnished such evidence. The evidence sought to be stricken was admitted without objection. McGarrity v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R., 25 R.I. 269, 274, 55 A. 718. The first exception is overruled.

The second exception is to the ruling of the trial justice denying respondent's motion to strike out the testimony of Mr. Carpenter as to the price paid by petitioner for the property in 1933. This statement was in response to questions which were not objected to. See McGarrity v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R., supra. This exception is overruled.

The last exception is to the decision itself. While the respondent does not question the correctness of the decisions of this court which hold that the statutory phrase "full and fair cash value" means "fair market value," he advances the theory that since, as he claims, there was a depression in textile property in Woonsocket in the years 1952 and 1953 the proper test in such years is the fair market value under normal conditions.

Two of respondent's witnesses testified as to the market for textile property in Woonsocket. One was Martin D. Miller, who came to Woonsocket from Chicago in the fall of 1953 to make a revaluation of the ratable property in that city such as has been made in several other municipalities in recent years. Mr. Miller stated that he believed the sales concerning which Mr. Carpenter testified, and which were discussed under the first exception, had a "tinge of distress." The other witness on this point was James C. Winn, executive secretary of the Woonsocket Chamber of Commerce and secretary of the Woonsocket Association of Manufacturers. This witness testified that at the time in question "A few properties were being liquidated in each of these years, I wouldn't say an unusually large number."

The substance of Mr. Carpenter's testimony as to the sales in question was that they were not forced sales but were in a fair market between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The trial justice in his rescript pointed out the conflict between Mr. Carpenter's testimony and that of respondent's witnesses as to the state of the market at that time, and his...