Greenwoods Co. v. Town of New Hartford

• Decision Date: 18 January 1895
• Citation: 65 Conn. 461,32 A. 933
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GREENWOODS CO. v. TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD.

32 A. 933

65 Conn. 461

GREENWOODS CO.

v. TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Jan. 18, 1895.

Case reserved from superior court, Litchfield county.

Action by the Greenwoods Company against the town of New Hartford for relief from a certain taxation assessment. The issues were referred by agreement to Hon. Dwight Loomis, state referee. On the facts found the case was reserved for the consideration of this court. Judgment for defendant.

The referee to whom the cause was referred reported as follows:

"The plaintiff, before the 1st day of November, 1891, and after the 1st day of October of that year, caused to be made a written or printed list of its property, duly sworn to, and presented the same to the assessors of said town of New Hartford. The assessors of said town altered said list as presented by the plaintiff by adding to the valuation in three items only, viz. the valuation of the dwelling houses, store, and temperance hall was raised from $45,000 to $49,800; the four mills were raised from $130,000 to $190,000; the amount invested in mechanical and manufacturing operations was raised from $65,000 to $71,000. The plaintiff appealed from the doings of the assessors in raising said valuations to the board of relief of said town, who refused to change the valuations as made by the assessors. I find that the actual value of said dwelling houses, store, and hall on the 1st day of October, 1891, was the sum of $48,000, that the actual value of said four mills on said date was $170,000, and that the actual value of the investment in mechanical and manufacturing operations was at least $71,000. And if the court shall deem the fact material and relevant, I further find from evidence, received subject to objection, that there were on the 1st day of October, 1891, in the mills and machinery of the plaintiffs, in said town, materials in the process of manufacture of the actual value of $29,000, in addition to the valuations previously mentioned. If the court shall consider the following facts relevant and material, I further find that, after the manufacture of goods is completed by the plaintiffs at New Hartford, they are deposited in their store in the city and state of New York, and there kept for sale; and on the 1st of October, 1891, the goods of the plaintiffs in said store amounted in value to the sum of $60,000, which was the fair average amount there kept for the year. There was no evidence to show whether or not the goods in question were taxed in the state of New York to the same extent as other like property, except the presumption in favor of such taxation. The question as to such presumption, and the admissibility of the evidence to show the facts aforesaid, are submitted to the court for its determination. In regard to the issue presented by the plaintiffs' claim that their assessment was disproportionate to other assessments in said town, I do not find that there was any rule adopted by the assessors or board of relief in said town that the property in the town should be entered in the list and assessed at some fractional part of its actual value. The plaintiff offered evidence covering some fifty different pieces of property owned by different persons, located contiguously along one of the main streets of the defendant town, and near the plaintiff's mills, being mostly residence property, to show that the same was put into the list of October 1, 1891, and allowed to remain by the assessors and board of relief, at much less than the actual value. All this evidence was objected to by counsel for the defendant, but was received by consent of the parties subject to the objection and the opinion of the court thereon. If the court shall consider it admissible, I find that the property above referred to was assessed in the list of October 1, 1891, at an average valuation not exceeding four-fifths of the actual value at that date. I further find from evidence received subject to the same objection that a certain large manufacturing property situated in another part of ...