Ives v. Town of Goshen

Decision Date18 January 1895
Citation65 Conn. 456,32 A. 932
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesIVES v. TOWN OF GOSHEN et al.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Robinson, Judge.

Action by Fessenden Ives against the town of Goshen and others to have the assessment of plaintiff's land made by defendants corrected. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

George A Hickox, John T. Hubbard, and Charles D. Burrill, for appellant.

Walter S. Judd, James Huntington, and Arthur D. Warner, for appellees.

HAMERSLEY, J. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the action of the assessors in listing his property for taxation, appealed to the board of relief. The board declined to make any change, and he applied to the superior court for relief. The court found that he was not aggrieved by the action of the board. This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court. The errors assigned are—First, that the court erred in not increasing the valuation of certain pieces of land owned by a few persons made defendants to the application, admittedly undervalued, notwithstanding the court found that the overvaluation of land belonging to the other defendants was more than sufficient to offset the undervaluations proved, and that the plaintiff's taxes were not increased by the valuations fixed by the assessors; second, that the court erred in ordering the plaintiff to pay double costs of suit, in the absence of any allegation in the defendants' answer supporting a claim for double costs, and in the absence of any statement in the finding of facts or judgment showing that the plaintiff's application appeared to be without probable cause.

First. An application to the superior court for relief under section 3860 et seq. of the General Statutes is an anomalous proceeding, first authorized in 1878. Pub. Acts 1878, p. 280. The assessment of property for taxation is an administrative proceeding. The judicial power is called into action to remedy an illegal assessment. The difficulty of obtaining redress in such case through an ordinary civil action probably induced the legislature to provide this proceeding whereby an aggrieved party might prevent the infliction of an injury, viz. the collection of an illegal tax, instead of being left to his inadequate remedy in a civil action after the injury had been inflicted. This law does not impose on the superior court the duties of assessors, nor of a board of relief, unless so far as may be necessary to grant relief to a person who has been aggrieved by the action of the board. The statute 1 does not purport to give the court general authority to review the action of the assessors or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Konover v. Town of West Hartford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1997
    ...Conn. 578, 585, 153 A.2d 420 (1959); Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Hartford, 99 Conn. 329, 332-33, 122 A. 91 (1923); Ives v. Goshen, 65 Conn. 456, 459-60, 32 A. 932 (1895). "If a taxpayer is found to be aggrieved by the decision of the board of tax review, the court tries the matter de novo a......
  • Burritt Mut. Sav. Bank of New Britain v. City of New Britain
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1959
    ...members as to valuation and the taxable property of taxpayers. Bugbee v. Town of Putnam, 90 Conn. 154, 158, 96 A. 955; Ives v. Town of Goshen, 65 Conn. 456, 459, 32 A. 932. In considering the results arrived at by them, we must bear in mind that the process of estimating the value of proper......
  • Sibley v. Town of Middlefield
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1956
    ...to exercise its broad discretionary power to grant relief. Wilcox v. Town of Madison, 103 Conn. 149, 150, 130 A. 84; Ives v. Town of Goshen, 65 Conn. 456, 459, 32 A. 932. We have recently examined the nature of appeals from boards of tax review. In Connecticut Savings Bank of New Haven v. C......
  • Davis v. Westport
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 2001
    ...of law. See Nader v. Altermatt, 166 Conn. 43, 55, 347 A.2d 89 (1974); Sibley v. Middlefield, supra, 143 Conn. 105; Ives v. Goshen, 65 Conn. 456, 459, 32 A. 932 (1895). "Whether a property has been overvalued for tax assessment purposes is a question of fact for the trier." Newbury Commons L......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT