Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. City of Bridgeport

• Citation: 103 Conn. 249,130 A. 164
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 30 July 1925
• Parties: BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC CO. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

130 A. 164

103 Conn. 249

BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC CO. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John W. Banks, Judge.

Action by the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company against the City of Bridgeport to recover moneys paid in overpayment of taxes. Judgment for the plaintiff for $37,606.53, and the defendant appeals. No error.

The collection of a tax is not an element of the assessment; it is subsequent thereto, and assumes a valid tax.

Argued before BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, MALTBIE, and NICKERSON, JJ.

Henry Greenstein and Harry Schwartz, both of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Arthur M. Marsh, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

NICKERSON, J.

The plaintiff is a public service corporation created by the General Assembly and located at Bridgeport. The defendant is a municipal corporation acting under a charter granted by the Legislature of Connecticut. In the defendant's charter it is provided that for the purposes of taxation the territory included within its taxing jurisdiction shall be constituted of two districts to be known as the first district and the second district which are therein defined and limited. 15 Special Laws 1907, p. 494; 17 Special Laws 1915, p. 3.

The inhabitants and property within the first district, which comprises the entire territory within the city limits are liable to taxation for certain enumerated purposes, and all other burdens and expenses of the city are met by taxation levied upon the inhabitants and property within the limits of the second district, which comprises the more thickly settled and central portions of the city. It therefore follows that property listed and assessed in the second district carries rates of taxation applicable to both districts, while property outside of that district carries only the first district rate of taxation. The plaintiff owned property taxable in both districts.

In June, 1906, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract by which the defendant city, in consideration of the plaintiff's agreement to supply it with pure water for all public and municipal purposes, agreed to pay the plaintiff certain specified sums of money, and also on the 1st day of June in each succeeding year for 20 years an additional sum of money equal to the tax or taxes assessed against the plaintiff by the defendant, and payable on April 1st preceding on such portion of the plaintiff company's valuation on the assessment books of the defendant city as shall be in excess of $400,000 in the first district, plus a reasonable sum for permanent additions and extensions thereafter made to the plaintiff's plant in that district, and $600,000 in the second district, plus a like reasonable sum for permanent additions and extensions thereafter made to its plant in that district, the latter district to bear the rate levied in both districts.

In each year from 1915 to 1922, inclusive, the plaintiff, within the time and in the manner provided by law filed with the assessors, or proper officials, lists of all its taxable property in the city of Bridgeport in each of the taxing districts separately. The board of assessors, tax commissioner, or board of relief in certain years modified the lists so filed, and the aggregate valuation of the plaintiff's property for taxation upon such lists as finally determined by the proper authorities was placed in one aggregate assessment for the year in which it was made. There was no separate valuation on the plaintiff's property in each of the taxing districts, but one aggregate assessment was made each year from 1915 to 1922, inclusive. Proceedings for the assessment and collection of taxes by the defendant city during each of the years were prescribed by law. It was the duty of the assessors, or tax commissioner who had the same duties and powers, to prepare and file with the town clerk an abstract of the grand lists as of September 1st of each year. Such abstract should contain the name of each taxpayer and the amount at which his property was assessed or valued for taxation upon that grand list. It should show the name of each taxpayer, his property and its valuation for taxation located and taxable in each district separately. That part of the abstract which contains property in the first district and which is located outside of the second district should be marked " first district only," and that part which contains property located in the second district should be marked " second district."

Any changes made by the board of relief are entered upon the original abstract of the grand list of each year, and the abstracts of the first district and the second district then go to the board of apportionment, who levy the annual taxes and prescribe separate rates of taxation, one rate of which is levied on property in the first district and another rate on property in the second district.

The rate book is prepared each year by the city auditor from the abstract and tax levy. It contains the name of each taxpayer the valuation of his property located and taxable in the first district, and the amount, in dollars, payable by him as taxes at the rate levied with respect to the first district property. The rate book also contains separately the name of each taxpayer, the valuation and assessment of his property located and taxable in the second district, and the amount, in dollars, payable by him as taxes at the rate levied with respect to the second district property. The taxable property in the second district is subject to both of the rates, but the property in the first district is subject to the first district rate only. One part of the rate book contains the assessment of the property in the first district which is located outside of the second district and the taxes payable thereon at the first district rate. Such part of the book is marked " first district only." Another part of the rate book contains the assessment of all property located in the second district and the taxes payable with respect thereto at both the first and second district rates. That part of the book is marked " second district." The rate book, when so completed and filed, or a copy thereof containing such information, is transmitted to the tax collector of the city, together with a proper warrant to him for collection of the taxes as stated therein. The tax collector then prepares and delivers to the taxpayers tax bills showing the amount of taxes demanded from each taxpayer with respect to his property taxable in the first district and second district respectively. The tax collector pays over the taxes collected to the treasurer of the defendant city; the same being the property of the city. The treasurer disburses the money so received and held by him in accordance with the appropriation thereof and as directed by the proper city officials. All of the taxes collected upon the grand lists of the years 1915 to 1922, inclusive, were so paid to the treasurer, and were used and expended by the city for its municipal purposes.

The abstract prepared and filed by the city officials with respect to the grand lists of the years 1906 to 1912, inclusive, conformed to the regular procedure prescribed by the defendant's charter. The plaintiff's name was entered as a taxpayer of the first district and separately as a taxpayer of the second district. The assessed valuation of its property was also entered separately, showing that taxable in each district. Tax bills were rendered accordingly and paid by the plaintiff.

In 1913 changes were made in the defendant's charter, and the abstract as prepared and filed by the city officials did not conform to the regular procedure, but contained the name of the plaintiff and the assessed value of all its property in a single list or abstract. A tax bill was rendered by the city for the whole amount which was paid by the plaintiff. The changes in the defendant's charter did not authorize the method of taxation pursued. Chamberlain v. Bridgeport, 88 Conn. 480, 91 A. 380.

The amount then overpaid by the plaintiff was afterwards refunded by the defendant. In 1914 the abstract was accordingly prepared and filed, and a tax bill for the correct amount was rendered and paid by the plaintiff.

The abstracts upon the lists of 1915 to 1922, inclusive, as prepared by the city officials, did not comform to the prescribed procedure with respect to the plaintiff's property situated outside of the second district. Instead, the assessed value of all its taxable property was entered only in the tax list and abstract of the second district. Such error resulted in the rendition by the city collector of tax bills to the plaintiff carrying the rate of taxation levied in the years 1916 to 1923, inclusive, upon both districts, and applied to all property of the plaintiff in the city. The tax bills so presented were paid by the plaintiff.

The trial court finds that such errors and mistakes were not chargeable in any degree to the plaintiff, but were committed by and solely chargeable to the assessors or tax commissioner of the defendant city, and were followed by corresponding errors in the office of the city auditor and tax collector of the defendant.

The plaintiff owned property in the first district, and taxable only in that district, assessed for taxation at $400,000. It was taxed at the rate of tax levied on property in the second district. Rate bills for such taxes were completed, and the city collector presented to the plaintiff tax bills therefor. When presented the bills were examined by the plaintiff's treasurer, after which vouchers were drawn authorizing payment. The bills showed the aggregate assessment of the plaintiff's property in Bridgeport. The plaintiff's officials checked...