Inhabitants of Paris v. Norway Water Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1893
• Citation: 27 A. 143,85 Me. 330
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF PARIS v. NORWAY WATER CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

27 A. 143

85 Me. 330

INHABITANTS OF PARIS

v. NORWAY WATER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 25, 1893.

(Official.)

Action by the inhabitants of Paris against the Norway Water Company to recover taxes. Heard on an agreed statement of facts. Defendant defaulted.

This was an action of debt, brought in the name of the inhabitants of Paris, for the collection of a tax assessed by the assessors of said town against the Norway Water Company, as a nonresident, on its property in the town of Paris, viz. on its aqueducts, pipes, conduits, hydrants, and franchises within said town, as real estate. The assessors of said town were duly elected and qualified at the annual meeting in March, 1890, duly called. The assessors gave notice in writing as required by Rev. St. c. 6, § 92, and said corporation did not make or present any list to said assessors. In the apportionment of taxes for state, county, and town purposes for the year 1890, said assessors assessed against said corporation the sum of $73.50, and thereafterwards, on the 8th day of July, 1890, committed the said tax, with the other taxes assessed for that year, to the collector, who was duly elected and qualified, under a warrant in due form of law. Said collector duly and properly returned the tax so assessed against said corporation, within the time required, to the treasurer of said town, who was duly elected and qualified. The acts and duties of said treasurer in receiving and recording said tax were in due form. Demand for the payment of said tax was seasonably made before commencement of this suit. The suit was properly authorized by the selectmen. The defendant is a legally organized corporation, having its place of business at Norway, in the county of Oxford, and owning therein a pumping station, reservoir, and certain pipes and hydrants, with rights, as defined by its charter, to take water from Pennesseewassee lake, in Norway. Its pipes and hydrants extend into Paris, and through the village of South Paris, for the use of which water the said corporation is paid. Said corporation owns no property in said town of Paris, except its aqueducts, conduits, pipes, and hydrants, as described in the assessment of said tax; and its pipes and hydrants in Paris are supplied from the pumping station and reservoir in Norway.

Upon the foregoing statement of facts and evidence introduced, the court were to render such judgment as the rights of the parties require, and, if for plaintiff, the amount due shall be assessed at nisi prius, as a petition for abatement, before the county commissioners, is now pending.

J. S. Wright, for plaintiff.

Bearce & Stearns, for defendant.

HASKELL, J. Debt for a tax laid upon defendant's aqueducts, conduits, pipes, and hydrants, as real estate, within the town of Paris. These appliances are used to distribute water among the citizens of Paris, supplied by a pumping station and reservoir in Norway, where the defendant corporation has its place of business. By charter, (Acts 1885, c. 369; Acts 1887, c 46,) defendant is authorized to supply the inhabitants of Paris and Norway with water, and to lay pipes necessary for the purpose through the streets of both towns. The charter does not locate the corporation in either town.

Taxes on real estate are to be assessed "in the town where the estate lies, to the owner or person in possession thereof," (Rev. St. c. 6, § 9;) and real estate, for the purposes of taxation, includes "all lands * * * and all buildings erected on or affixed to the same," (Id. § 3;) and the word "lands" includes "all tenements and hereditaments connected therewith and all rights thereto and interests therein," (Id. c. 1, § 6, rule 10.)

Under these provisions, a boom across the Kennebec river, fastened to permanent piers in the river and to the shores by chains, was held to be real estate, for the purposes of taxation. Hall v. Benton, 69 Me. 346. So was that part within the state of a toll bridge across a river that marks the boundary line. Kittery v. Portsmouth Bridge, 78 Me. 93, 2 Atl. Rep. 847. Water pipes were assessed in solido with personal property in Rockland v. Water Co., 82 Me. 188, 19 Atl. Rep. 163, and in a suit for the tax it was contended that they were real estate, and improperly included in an assessment with chattels; but the court, without deciding the question, held it immaterial, as the controversy was one of overvaluation, merely.

It will be seen from these authorities that the court gives very wide scope to the definition of "real estate," for the purposes of taxation, and it is best that it should be so. Subjects of public revenue should contribute to the public burdens so that they may lie as equally as possible among all the people; and, in these days, when capital accumulates in commercial centers, many times representing contrivances, local and permanent in character, that contribute an income, it is just that such source of profit pay its tax where its location may be.

Aqueducts above or under ground are but conditions suited for carrying water, undefiled, through or over the soil. They are fixtures, permanent in character, and part of the land that sustains them. Size, capacity, and the material used in their construction, do not change their nature. They are a constituent part of the freehold, and, so long as they remain the property of the owner of the fee, their character as real estate will not be questioned. It is only when they are constructed and occupied by persons or companies having no title in the soil that their classification as property becomes doubtful; that is, the interest of such persons or companies in them becomes of doubtful classification, rather than their generic character, regardless of ownership. The owner of a fee may, by sale of some structure upon it, and by granting license for it to remain, as between himself and the vendee, make it a chattel, while as a whole, in a generic sense, it would be classified as real estate.

The proper classification, under the rules of the common law, of this species of property, is not a new question. It has been many times considered in England during the last century; and water mains and underground conduits have there been considered as fixed to, included in, and a part of, the soil. They have been considered real estate, and have uniformly been held locally taxable as such to the "occupiers of lands," under the statute of 43 Eliz., or, as our statute puts it "to the...