National Folding Box Co. v. City of New Haven

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore DALY; BALDWIN
Citation146 Conn. 578,153 A.2d 420
Decision Date30 June 1959
PartiesNATIONAL FOLDING BOX COMPANY, INC. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN (two cases). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 420

153 A.2d 420
146 Conn. 578
NATIONAL FOLDING BOX COMPANY, INC.
v.
CITY OF NEW HAVEN (two cases).
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
June 30, 1959.

[146 Conn. 579]

Page 422

George W. Crawford, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Harold M. Mulvey, New Haven, for appellant (defendant) in each case.

Frank E. Callahan, New Haven, with whom was John E. Ecklund, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff) in each case.

Before [146 Conn. 578] DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

[146 Conn. 579] BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

These are appeals by the defendant from judgments entered on a report of a committee appointed on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the board of tax review of the defendant in fixing the valuation for the purpose of levying real estate taxes on the lists of 1954 and 1955 on the land and buildings of the plaintiff's manufacturing plant. The appeals, one for each of the two years, have been combined under Practice Book, § 382.

The assessment date in New Haven is June 1 in each year. As of June 1, 1954, the city assessors valued the plaintiff's lands, of which there were eleven parcels, at $327,195, and the buildings, of which there were twenty-four, at $3,527,410, a total of $3,854,605. As of June 1, 1955, they valued the land as in 1954, and the buildings at $3,134,050, a total of $3,461,245. The change in the valuation of the buildings was due in part to a reduction in the value of one and the listing of a new office and warehouse. On the appeals to the board of tax review, it reduced the valuation on the buildings on the list of 1954 to $2,997,970 but otherwise made no change.

[146 Conn. 580] A committee of three appointed by the court conducted an extensive hearing and viewed the plaintiff's premises. The report of the committee, as corrected in response to the defendant's motion to correct, discloses the following facts: The plaintiff's property is in the northeastern section of New Haven. The eleven parcels of land are irregular in shape and size and are traversed by several streets. On the west, some of the land borders the Mill River, a nonnavigable stream. Portions of the

Page 423

land are low and subject to flooding. Most of the buildings are constructed on piles which are not holding up well. The buildings are of varying size, shape and construction. While they are in a fair state of repair, as a whole, they present an antiquated and inefficient manufacturing plant and one which would not be reproduced. Six of the buildings were constructed in 1906 and one in 1915. Five of these are multistoried, old and outmoded. These seven buildings contain 406,236 square feet of floor space out of a total of 673,108 in all of the buildings. There is a great deal of waste space in them. The valuation made by the assessors on the list of 1953 was $88,955 on the land and $1,138,800 on the buildings, a total of $1,227,755. In 1954 the assessors were engaged in the revaluation of real estate required every ten years. Rev.1958, § 12-62. There had been no revaluation of the plaintiff's properties since 1938 because of the war and an extension of the statutory requirement. Cum.Sup.1955, § 1046d. The values on the lists of 1954 and 1955 were the result of the 1954 revaluation.

The committee report contains a valuation for each of the plaintiff's twenty-five buildings and for each of the eleven parcels of land. The committee found that the fair market value of the land, on the [146 Conn. 581] list of 1954, was $190,000, and of the buildings, $975,000, a total of $1,165,000; on the list of 1955, $190,000 for the land, and $1,050,000 for the buildings, a total of $1,240,000. The difference between the values placed on the buildings on the two lists is due to the addition on the 1955 list of the new office and warehouse building. The committee specifically found: '[T]he highest and best use of the subject property [is] for lease or sale to investors who are attracted by the possibility of renting as separate buildings or spaces in buildings to manufacturers requiring relatively smaller areas. The fair market value is principally determined by sales of other industrial plants. These sale prices are regulated largely by the potential net income which an investor expects to realize from multitenant operation.'

The defendant by motion sought extensive corrections in the finding, some of which were made by the committee. Those made included additional facts which had been incorporated in the summary above, a statement of the defendant's claims before the committee, and rulings on evidence which were challenged by the defendant. As the defendant in its brief in this court has abandoned its challenge to the rulings on evidence, they need not be considered further. After the committee had ruled upon the motion to correct, the defendant filed exceptions to the acceptance of the report as corrected and a motion that the report be rejected. The court overruled the exceptions, denied the motion and accepted the report. It is unnecessary to detail the exceptions taken to the report and passed upon by the court because they are fully comprehended in the claims which were made before us and which we discuss below.

The defendant now claims that the report of the [146 Conn. 582] committee does not conform to the statutes and rules of procedure because the subordinate facts contained in it are not sufficient to support the ultimate facts found by the committee or to enable the trial court properly to adjudicate the legal issues involved. Rev.1958, § 52-425; Practice Book, §§ 174-177. Section 168 of the Practice Book provides that the report of a committee should ordinarily state only the ultimate facts found and the conclusions reached. See Cohn v. Hartford, 130 Conn. 699, 706, 37 A.2d 237, 152 A.L.R. 604; Hollister v. Cox, 131 Conn. 523, 525, 41 A.2d 93, 156 A.L.R. 1412; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. p. 271. A party may, however, request a finding of subordinate facts and the rulings made by the committee. Practice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. City of Wallingford, No. 13549
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 15 Agosto 1989
    ...a trier of fact. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Monroe, 149 Conn. 450, 455, 181 A.2d 118 [1962]; National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, [146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 (1959) ]. Under the facts of this case the trier was not in error in adopting the depreciation formula used by the "Cou......
  • Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding, No. 18921.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 12 Marzo 2013
    ...calculation of the “true and actual value” of real property for assessment purposes. See, e.g., National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 587–88, 153 A.2d 420 (1959) (when “the prospect of a sale ... of the plaintiff's manufacturing [61 A.3d 478]plant as a whole ... was extremel......
  • Smith v. Andrews, No. 17745.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 21 Octubre 2008
    ...the trier of fact unless the opinion is so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to a rational mind." National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 (1959); see also Mather v. Griffin Hospital, 207 Conn. 125, 145, 540 A.2d 666 In the present case, the jury reasonably c......
  • Mather v. Griffin Hosp., No. 13154
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Abril 1988
    ...the trier of fact unless the opinion is so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to a rational mind." National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 Kenison's computations of loss of compensation through Victor's anticipated retirement at age sixty-one were founded on ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. City of Wallingford, No. 13549
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 15 Agosto 1989
    ...a trier of fact. Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Monroe, 149 Conn. 450, 455, 181 A.2d 118 [1962]; National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, [146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 (1959) ]. Under the facts of this case the trier was not in error in adopting the depreciation formula used by the "Cou......
  • Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding, No. 18921.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 12 Marzo 2013
    ...calculation of the “true and actual value” of real property for assessment purposes. See, e.g., National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 587–88, 153 A.2d 420 (1959) (when “the prospect of a sale ... of the plaintiff's manufacturing [61 A.3d 478]plant as a whole ... was extremel......
  • Smith v. Andrews, No. 17745.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 21 Octubre 2008
    ...the trier of fact unless the opinion is so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to a rational mind." National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 (1959); see also Mather v. Griffin Hospital, 207 Conn. 125, 145, 540 A.2d 666 In the present case, the jury reasonably c......
  • Mather v. Griffin Hosp., No. 13154
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Abril 1988
    ...the trier of fact unless the opinion is so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to a rational mind." National Folding Box Co. v. New Haven, 146 Conn. 578, 586, 153 A.2d 420 Kenison's computations of loss of compensation through Victor's anticipated retirement at age sixty-one were founded on ......
  • 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