Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Town of Oxford

• Decision Date: 28 July 1924
• Citation: 101 Conn. 383,126 A. 1
• Parties: CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. TOWN OF OXFORD. CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. TOWN OF OXFORD ET AL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

126 A. 1

101 Conn. 383

CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. TOWN OF OXFORD.

CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. TOWN OF OXFORD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 28, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County.

Separate actions by the Connecticut Light & Power Company against the Town of Oxford, and against the Town of Oxford and others seeking to have certain tax assessments upon the plaintiff's property, made by the assessors of the defendant town, declared illegal and void, and for other equitable relief, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, where a demurrer to the complaint in one case (No 18391) was overruled, and the causes were afterward tried together to the court. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff in each case, and defendant town appeals. No error.

The two actions above noted were brought by the plaintiff for relief against the action of the assessors of the town of Oxford, in the assessment and valuation for taxation of its property upon the tax lists of the town for the years 1920 and 1921 and were heard together in the superior court and in this court on appeal. The first action was brought under the provisions of the Public Acts of 1921, c. 302. The second action is an appeal from the action of the board of relief of the town refusing to reduce plaintiff's tax list, taken in usual form to the superior court.

The complaint in the first action alleged the organization of the plaintiff as a corporation engaged in the generation of hydroelectric power, for power, light, and heat within the state; that on October 1, 1920, it owned and used a dam located on the Housatonic river partly in Oxford and partly in Monroe for generation of power; that power was generated by a plant erected in the town of Monroe, in connection with and a part of this dam; that the power generated at this plant is transmitted over a power line of the plaintiff, consisting of towers and wires running from the plant through the town of Oxford to the city of Waterbury, and thence distributed for use; that the assessors of the town of Oxford, in making up the list of taxable property in the town, made an assessment of plaintiff's property as follows: Mills and dams, etc., $500,000; transmission line, $41,000; 17 buildings, $7,525; 10 dwellings, $18,300; 417 acres of land, $14,595; one automobile, $600; other taxable property, $800. The town computed and laid a tax on this listed property. The plaintiff claimed that the mills, dams, and transmission line above named were not taxable in the town of Oxford, and claimed a judgment declaring the assessment and the tax computed thereon to be void. The defendant town demurred to the complaint, for reasons which will be hereafter stated in the opinion, which demurrer was overruled, and the defendant answered over.

Trial was had upon a stipulated statement of facts containing the facts in the complaint as above set forth, and also facts as follows: The power generated is conveyed along and upon steel towers, with cables and wires attached, which towers are about 15 feet square at the base and extend to a height of about 35 feet to a point, and are imbedded in cement foundations sunk in the earth, the top of which extends above the surface of the soil in the town of Oxford, and to the towers are attached insulators, arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the transmission of electric power. The power generated by means of the dam, water, and power house is transmitted by the plaintiff corporation over and by means of the steel towers and equipment aforesaid, owned by the plaintiff, through the town of Oxford, to other points where it is distributed for use. Plaintiff did not appeal to the board of relief for the town of Oxford from the assessment made in 1920.

It was afterward made part of the record by stipulation that the 82 towers described in the agreed facts are located on land belonging to private owners in the town of Oxford, from whom the plaintiff had obtained rights of way in perpetuity for the purpose of erecting and maintaining the towers, to which are attached cables, wires, insulators, arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the transmission of electric power. To the list handed to the assessors in 1920 by the plaintiff the assessors added the item, " One part of dam, $500,000."

The allegations of the complaint in the second action are similar to those contained in the complaint in the first action, with proper change of dates, and further allegations as to the action of the assessors and board of relief. The agreed statement of facts in the second action states substantially the same facts as those found in the first action, with proper change of dates, and further states that plaintiff filed a list with the assessors of the town of Oxford within the time provided by law, not including one-half of its dam or 82 steel towers, with cables and wires attached, and the assessors added the items, part of one dam, $500,000, and 82 steel towers with cables and wires attached, at $500 each a total of $41,000. The plaintiff appealed from the doings of the assessors to the board of relief of the town of Oxford, which upheld the assessors as regards the items above referred to, and from the action of the board of relief appealed to the superior court.

Certain facts relating to the taxation of the real property of plaintiff in both actions are omitted, as the questions involved do not form a part of the appeals to this court. The stipulation in each action states the questions at issue between the parties to be:

" Did the town of Oxford have power and authority to assess and lay the tax upon the mills, dams, steel towers (called in the complaint transmission lines) and equipment, etc., or was said property not subject to such assessment and tax?"

The trial court found the issues in each action for the plaintiff, and that the tax levied upon the half of the dam and upon the towers should be stricken from the taxable lists of defendant, and enjoined the defendant town from collecting any tax levied on these items. The defendant appealed in both actions to this court, and the trial court found all the facts stipulated by the parties true, and the only facts considered in the actions.

The reasons of appeal in the first action are as follows: (1) The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint. (2) The court erred in not ruling and holding that the part of the dam situated in the town of Oxford is taxable in said town. (3) The court erred in not ruling and holding that the steel towers with cables and wires attached, located in the town of Oxford, are taxable in said town of Oxford. (4) The court erred in refusing to hold and rule that the steel towers with cables and wires attached, located in the town of Oxford, are real estate taxable in said town. (5) The court erred in refusing to hold and rule that the steel towers with cables and wires attached, located in the town of Oxford, are taxable in said town as personal property permanently located or stationed in said town.

The reasons of appeal in the second action are identical with the above, omitting the first reason.

Benjamin Slade and Samuel H. Platcow, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Alfred C. Baldwin, of Derby, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, and KELLOGG, JJ.

KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Considering the defendant's demurrer to the complaint in the first action, we find that in its brief the defendant town makes two claims of law as comprehending its contentions; that is: (a) Public Acts of 1921, c. 302, has no retrospective or retroactive effect; (b) this act cannot revive the right of appeal already barred prior to its passage. The act in question was approved June 14, 1921, and took effect from its passage. It provides, among other things, that, when a tax has been laid upon property nontaxable in the town in whose tax list it was set, the owner thereof, prior to the payment of such tax, in addition to the other remedies provided by law, may make an application for relief to the superior court in the county wherein such town is situated, within one year from the time when such tax became due.

In supporting its first claim above stated, defendant insists that the " application for relief" therein authorized is in effect an appeal from the doings of the assessors and board of relief, and as the act contains no provision as to its retrospective or retroactive effect, it must, by a familiar rule of construction, be held to have only prospective operation, citing Humphrey v. Gerard, 83 Conn. 346, 352, 77 A. 65, 67, to the effect that, unless the terms of statutes " show clearly and unmistakably a legislative intention that they should so operate," they are not to be construed to operate retroactively.

The interpretation of this statute depends largely upon its purpose and its field of operation. It is concerned, in the first place, with property not legally taxable in a municipality where taxed, and, in the second place, with a tax computed on an assessment manifestly excessive, and which could not have been arrived at, except by disregarding the provisions of the General Statutes as to valuation. We should also note at the outset that action under this statute is to be taken within one year from the time when the tax became due; that is, " on the first day on which the collector thereof, according to the terms of the notice given by him, is ready to receive them." General Statutes, § 1294. This is an important date, for it determines the beginning of the year, during which a collector may continue by certificate the lien of taxes on real property. General...