Concord Land & Waterpower Co. v. Clough

• Decision Date: 28 July 1899
• Citation: 45 A. 565,69 N.H. 609
• Parties: CONCORD LAND & WATERPOWER CO. v. CLOUGH.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

45 A. 565

69 N.H. 609

CONCORD LAND & WATERPOWER CO.

v. CLOUGH.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

July 28, 1899.

Exceptions from Merrimack county.

Petition by the Concord Land & Water Power Company against Eliza T. Clough for assessment of damages for fencing plaintiff's land. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Verdict set aside.

Streeter, Walker & Hollis, for plaintiff.

Albin, Martin & Howe, for defendant.

WALLACE, J. Subject to exception, the records of the town of Canterbury, showing the valuation of the defendant's land for taxation from 1891 to 1897, inclusive, were introduced by the plaintiff on the question of the actual value of the property. The records of the assessment of taxes, made and kept by the proper officials in the performance of their duty, were competent evidence of the facts therein stated, so far as they related to the assessment and collection of taxes on the defendant's land in the years named. They are evidence of the assessed valuation of the land for the purposes of taxation. But unless the records are ancient ones, or are expressly made evidence by statute, the authorities almost universally hold they are not admissible as evidence of the actual value of the property, in mere private controversies between parties not claiming rights under the records. Flint v. Flint, 6 Allen, 34; Kenerson v. Henry, 101 Mass. 152; Com. v. Heffron, 102 Mass. 148; Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 156; Anthony v. Railroad Co., 162 Mass. 60, 37 N. E. 780; Martin v. Railroad Co., 62 Conn. 331, 25 Atl. 239; Railroad Co. v. McDougall, 108 Ind. 179, 8 N. E. 571; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 6 Ind. App. 262, 33 N. E. 241; Insurance Co. v. Niewedde, 11 Ind. App. 624, 39 N. E. 534; Dudley v. Railway Co., 77 Iowa, 408, 42 N. W. 359; Railroad Co. v. Mayne, 83 Cal. 566, 23 Pac. 522; McLane v. Paschal, 74 Tex. 20, 11 S. W. 837; Lewis, Em. Dom. $ 448; Mills, Em. Dom. § 172; Rand. Em. Dom. § 235. The determination of the value of property for taxation being made for another purpose, and very frequently at less than the actual value, is not a fair criterion thereof. The appraisal for taxation not being made by the owner or at his instance, and almost always in his absence and without his being heard, he is not bound by it, except for the purposes for which it was made. It was not a useful or proper aid to the jury in fixing the value of the defendant's land or in assessing her damages. It should have been excluded. This question has not been directly passed upon by our court In Seavey v. Seavey, 37 N. H. 125, the Inventory of a deceased...