Morris v. City of New Haven

• Decision Date: 08 March 1906
• Citation: 78 Conn. 673,63 A. 123
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MORRIS v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

63 A. 123

78 Conn. 673

MORRIS

v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1906.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Application by Eugenia L. Morris in the nature of an appeal from the refusal of the board of relief of the city of New Haven to abate an addition of 10 per cent made by the assessors to plaintiff's tax list for the year 1902. Facts found and questions of law reserved by the superior court for consideration and advice of the Supreme Court. Application dismissed.

Charles G. Morris and Henry W. Merwin, for plaintiff. Leonard M. Daggett, for defendant

PRENTICE, J. This is the same case as that reported in 77 Conn. 108, 58 Atl. 748. Upon its return to the superior court the defendant filed its answer containing two defenses. The first related to its claim that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the action of the board of relief; the second averred that on September 3, 1903, pending the appeal, the plaintiff paid to the tax collector the full amount of taxes laid and assessed, or which could be laid and assessed, against her upon the valuations of the assessors and board of relief on the list of 1902, including therein the 10 per cent addition, which was the subject of the appeal. To this defense the plaintiff replied, admitting the payment as alleged, save that its date was September 1, 1903, but alleging that it was made under duress. From the agreed statement of facts upon which the reservation was made, it appears that the facts relating to this defense are as follows: The collector, prior to July 1, 1903, gave notice by advertisement that he would commence to receive the taxes laid on the list of 1902 at his office on said July 1st, the day on which they were by law payable, and also sent to the plaintiff a tax bill in the usual form for the amount of the plaintiff's taxes as computed upon her assessment as made by the assessors and board of relief and including said 10 per cent. addition. Upon the bill was printed, as is customary, a notice that interest from July 1st would be charged upon all bills remaining unpaid September 1st. Upon August 31st the plaintiff's son and attorney wrote and sent a letter in her name and behalf to the collector and enclosed therein said tax bill and his check for the amount and in payment thereof. The letter stated that the payment was made under protest. Said letter and check were received by the collector and the bill receipted and returned.

Counsel for the plaintiff appear to concede, as they must, that if the payment which was made was so made that no part of it could be recovered, the application must be dismissed. Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 557, 10 Sup. Ct. 620, 33 L. Ed. 101(5. A party cannot recover money voluntarily paid with a full knowledge of all the facts, although no obligation to make such payment existed. Lamborn v. County Commissioners 97 U. S. 181, 24 L. Ed. 926; Sheldon v. South School District, 24 Conn. 88; Russell v. New Haven, 51 Conn. 259; Wyman v. Farnsworth, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 369; Boston & Sandwich Glass Co. v. Boston, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 181.

As there is no question of the plaintiff's full knowledge of the facts, it only remains to inquire whether her payment was such as the law regards as voluntary. "Where a party pays an illegal demand with a full knowledge of all the facts which render such demand illegal, without an immediate and urgent necessity therefor, or unless to release his person or property from detention, or to prevent an immediate seizure of his person or property, such payment must be deemed voluntary, and cannot be recovered back." Lamborn v. County Commissioners, 97 U. S. 181, 187, 24 L. Ed. 926; Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 98 U. S. 541, 25 L. Ed. 196; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 Sup. Ct 620, 33 L. Ed. 1010; Wabaunsee County Com'rs v. Walker, 8 Kan. 431. "A payment is voluntary if made by a party informed of all the facts connected with the subject-matter of the payment, and under the influence of no distress or coercion, even though accompanied with a protest." Phelps v. Mayor of New York, 2 L ...