Nottingham v. NewMkt. Mfg. Co.

Decision Date07 October 1930
Citation151 A. 709
PartiesNOTTINGHAM v. NEWMARKET MFG. CO.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Burque, Judge.

Assumpsit by Nottingham against the New market Manufacturing Company. Case transferred from trial court on agreement of parties without ruling.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Assumpsit, to recover taxes assessed against the defendant for the years 1921 to 1926, inclusive.

The parties agree to the following facts: The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Massachusetts and having its usual place of business at Newmarket in this state. It has complied with the provisions of Laws 1913, c. 187, § 1 (Pub. Laws 1926, c. 231, § 1), and service of the writ was made upon the secretary of state. On the abovementioned dates it was not engaged in any business in Nottingham and possessed nothing of value there, unless its interest under a certain indenture between it and the Lamprey River Improvement Company, dated June 7, 1917, relating to the maintenance of certain reservoirs located mainly in Nottingham, which it sold to the improvement company in 1913, constitutes taxable property within said town.

The indenture in question, which supersedes a prior contract between the parties dated March 14, 1916, provides for the proper inspection and control of the reservoirs by the Lamprey River Improvement Company "during such time as Pawtuckaway and Mendum's Ponds, or either of them, continue to be used as reservoirs for the storage of water for the use of the Manufacturing Company, or for the use of the Newmarket Electric Company, or their respective successors and assigns." It is stipulated that "the Improvement Company, its successors and assigns, shall at all times control the operation of all its gates, dams and spillways and the outlets of said reservoirs, or either of them, in such a manner as will best equalize the flow of water in the Lamprey River for the benefit of the Manufacturing Company and the Newmarket Electric Company, and their respective successors and assigns, as the owners of water privileges on the Lamprey River." There are further stipulations regarding repairs and replacement.

The reservoirs, comprising Pawtuckaway and Mendum's ponds, and their appurtenant properties have been taxed to the Lamprey River Improvement Company since 1913, and that company has paid the taxes assessed thereon.

By agreement of the parties the following questions were transferred by Burque, J., without a ruling: 1. Whether the suit can be maintained against the defendant. 2. Whether the defendant has any taxable property within the town of Nottingham.

George R. Scammon, of Exeter, for plaintiff.

Allen Hollis and Donald Knowlton, both of Concord, for defendant.

MARBLE, J.

1. It is stated in the plaintiff's brief that the suit is brought by the selectmen and tax collector in the name of the town (Pub. St. c. 60, § 17; Pub. Laws 1926, c. 66, § 42), and that the designation of the town as plaintiff is merely for convenience. Neither the writ nor a copy of it is before the court, but the defendant does not contest the statement, and it is therefore presumed to be correct. See Canaan v. District, 74 N. H, 517, 536, 70 A. 250; Winchester v. Stockwell, 76 N. H. 193, 194, 81 A. 526.

The defendant takes the position that, since it is not a resident of Nottingham (Woodsum Steamboat Co. v. Sunapee, 74 N. H. 495, 69 A. 577), no suit can be maintained against it for the purpose of collecting taxes due the town. It contends that taxes assessed on the property of nonresidents are a charge against the taxed estate only, and not a personal charge against the owner, and that, if a tax is legally assessed against a nonresident defendant, a lien is created upon the property taxed, and that such tax must be collected, if at all, by a sale of the property. In support of this contention, the following cases are cited: Dewey v. Stratford, 42 N. H. 282; Cocheco Mfg. Co. v. Strafford, 51 N....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Petition of Gilbert Associates
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1952
    ...instead of an execution. Boody v. Watson, 64 N.H. 162, 167, 9 A. 794; Jaffrey v. Smith, 76 N.H. 168, 171, 80 A. 504; Nottingham v. Newmarket Mfg. Co. 84 N.H. 419, 151 A. 709. See also, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Marston, 94 N.H. 375, 54 A.2d 154. In execution of the warrant real estate an......
  • Hinkley & Donovan v. Paine
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • January 14, 1977
    ...instead of an execution. Boody v. Watson, 64 N.H. 162, 167, 9 A. 794; Jaffrey v. Smith, 76 N.H. 168, 171, 80 A. 504; Nottingham v. Company, 84 N.H. 419, 151 A. 709. See also, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Marston, 94 N.H. 375, 54 A.2d 154." 97 N.H. 411, 414, 90 A.2d 499, We would not questio......
  • United States v. Gilbert Associates
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1953
    ...of an execution. Boody v. Watson, 64 N.H. 162, 167, 9 A. 794; Jaffrey v. Smith, 76 H.H. 168, 171, 80 A. 504; Nottingham v. Newmarket Mfg. Company, 84 N.H. 419, 151 A. 709 See also, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Marston, 94 N.H. 375, 54 A.2d 154.' 97 N.H. 411, 414, 90 A.2d 499, 502. We would ......
  • National Truckers Service, Inc. v. Aero Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1972
    ...F.Supp . 624 (U.S.D.C., Minn., 1964); C. H. Leavell & Company v. Doster, 211 So.2d 813 (Miss.Sup., 1968); and Nottingham v. Newmarket Mfg. Co ., 84 N.H. 419, 151 A. 709 (1930). See other authorities cited under Sec. 4029 of Fletcher, No Texas cases have been cited and we have been unable to......
  • 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