Inhabitants of Dover v. Maine Water Co.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1897
• Citation: 90 Me. 180,38 A. 101
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF DOVER v. MAINE WATER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A. 101

90 Me. 180

INHABITANTS OF DOVER

v. MAINE WATER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 10, 1897.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Piscataquis county.

Action of debt by the inhabitants of Dover against the Maine Water Company to recover a tax. Submitted on report. Judgment for plaintiffs.

The defendant company owns by purchase from the Dover & Foxcroft Water Company, its predecessor in title, a plant in the villages of Dover and Foxcroft. At the time of the purchase the first-named corporation had a contract with the Dover & Foxcroft village fire corporation under which the latter paid the former for hydrant rentals $1,500 per annum, and, in addition thereto, all taxes assessed upon the property of the water company by the towns of Dover, Foxcroft, and Sangerville. Prior to 1892 the valuation of the plant in Dover, where the reservoir is, was fixed at $500; and the same valuation was placed in Foxcroft, where the pumping station is located. In 1892 the valuation was raised to $10,000 in each town. When this tax was assessed, the Dover & Foxcroft Water Company objected to paying it, and after this action was brought the defendant corporation served notices upon the village fire corporation requiring it to either pay the tax or assume the defense of the action; but the village fire corporation did neither.

The grounds of defense to the action are stated in the opinion.

H. Hudson, for plaintiff.

J. B. Peaks, for defendant.

WALTON, J. This is an action against a water company to recover a town tax. Payment of the tax is resisted on several grounds.

1. Exemption. The aqueducts, pipes, and conduits of water companies are exempt from taxation when the town takes water therefrom for the extinguishment of fires without charge. Rev. St. c. 6, § 6, cl. 10. The defendants claim exemption under this provision of the statute. The claim cannot be sustained. The evidence fails to show that water is so taken by the town. The water company furnishes water to a village corporation for such a purpose, but not without charge. It is paid for all the water so furnished.

2. Illegality. It appears that the assessors omitted to tax the town poor farm, and a small parcel of land on which an engine house stands. They also omitted to tax the land on which the county court house stands, and the hall in which the town meetings are held. And the court is asked to determine if these omissions did not render the entire assessment illegal and void. We think not. If such omissions should be held to vitiate and render invalid the entire assessment, we doubt if there is one in the state that could be sustained. The consequences of such a doctrine are enough to condemn it. No case is cited in support of such a doctrine. The contrary has been held. Williams v. School Dist....