Comstock v. Town of Waterford

• Decision Date: 19 December 1911
• Citation: 85 Conn. 6,81 A. 1059
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COMSTOCK v. TOWN OF WATERFORD.

81 A. 1059

85 Conn. 6

COMSTOCK v. TOWN OF WATERFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 19, 1911

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by James E. Comstock against the Town of Waterford to set aside proceedings by the board of relief adding property to plaintiff's tax list. From a judgment disaffirming the action of the board, the town appeals. Judgment set aside and cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment affirming the board's action.

Christopher L. Avery and Charles A. Gallup, for appellant.

Abel P. Tanner and John J. Lawless, for appellee.

RORABACK, J.

The appeal presents two questions: First, whether the assessment in question was void for want of notice to the taxpayer second, whether the property assessed was for the purpose of taxation real estate.

It appears that the plaintiff, who was a resident of the town of Waterford, filed with the assessors of the town a tax list showing that he was the owner of the land upon which four cottages then stood, but did not include these cottages in the list. Subsequent to the filing of this list the board of assessors of Waterford added these cottages to the plaintiff's tax list. The plaintiff was not notified of this addition, but learned of it, and appealed to the board of relief before whom he was duly heard.

The plaintiff by Pub. Acts 1905, c. 154. was entitled to written notice of the addition made to his list. This defect was waived by his appeal to the board of relief. Quinnebaug Reservoir Co. v. Union, 73 Conn. 294, 299, 47 A. 328. On October 1, 1909, the plaintiff was the owner and had record title to a tract of land situated in the town of Waterford. On that day, and for several years prior thereto, there had been standing on this land four summer cottages, described as the " Arthur Gager cottage," the " Allen Richards cottage," the " Grace Bitgood cottage," and the " Club House." The land on which each cottage stood was leased by the plaintiff to the owner of the building by a written lease for a period of years. These leases all expressed that the land was to be used for summer cottages. The leases of the " Arthur Gager cottage" and the " Allen Richards cottage" were recorded in the land records of the town of Waterford. The other two leases were not recorded. The Gager cottage was built in the year 1903, at a cost of about $700. The Richards cottage was built in the winter of 1905 and 1906, at a cost of about $600. The Bitgood cottage was built in the year 1903, at a cost of about $125. The Club House was built in 1905 at a cost of about $700. Each of the houses was built where it now stands of lumber and other materials brought to the place and there assembled and nailed together. They were supported upon chestnut posts set into the ground; the sills of the buildings being nailed to the tops of the posts. They were not built in sections, and were not of the description called " portable houses." None of the described buildings have ever been moved from the place where it was built. Photographs of these houses exhibited in this court indicated that their outward appearance was that of permanent summer cottages.

Evidence was admitted and certain facts found by the trial court based on this evidence as to the mutual understanding and agreement of the parties as to these leases. The purpose of this evidence and the finding of the court thereon was to show that it was not the intention of the parties that these cottages should become a part of the plaintiff's real estate. For the purposes of this case, this evidence and these facts were immaterial. The private contracts and arrangements between the lessor and his lessees as to these buildings were not binding upon the town of Waterford or its assessors. Milligan v. Drury, 130 Mass. 428, 430. The question here...