Randell v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 09 September 1893
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: RANDELL et al. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

28 A. 523

63 Conn. 321

RANDELL et al.

v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Sept. 9, 1893.

Case reserved from superior court, Fairfield county.

Appeal by Rufus Randell and others from the action of the board of relief of the city of Bridgeport in the matter of the assessment of appellants' real estate for taxation. Reserved on a finding of facts.

G. Stoddard and W. D. Bishop, Jr., for plaintiffs.

H. H. Knapp and M. W. Seymour, for defendant.

CARPENTER, J. This is an appeal from the doings of the assessors and the board of relief of Bridgeport. The only parts of the complaint material to notice are the fourth and sixth paragraphs. As amended, they are as follows: "(4) Said board of assessors valued said two parcels of property at one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, an amount fifty-six thousand two hundred and fifty dollars in excess of the appellants' valuation, and an amount largely in excess of a just, fair and reasonable estimate of the value of said property." "(6) Said valuation of said board of assessors, and said action of said board of relief in refusing to reduce the same, are unjust, unfair, and unreasonable, and therefore illegal." The substituted answer denies the material parts of the complaint. The finding is, in substance, as follows: On the 1st day of October, 1891, it was, and ever since has been, the uniform rule of the board of assessors and board of relief of the city and town of Bridgeport to value all property, for the purposes of taxation, at one-half of the fair market value of such property at the time of such valuation. The said boards of assessors and relief applied said rule in valuing said property of the plaintiffs for taxation at $125,000; and, in placing said valuation upon said property, said board of assessors and board of relief found and fixed the fair market value of said property on the 1st day of October, 1891, to be $250,000, and one-half said fair market value to be $125,000. The court found the fair market value of the property in question on the 1st day of October, 1891, to be $125,000, assuming the question of the fair market value to be a question of fact to be decided upon all the evidence. All evidence to prove the rule of valuation in Bridgeport for the purposes of taxation, and that one-half the fair market value of the property in question was less than $125,000, was objected to by the defendant, and the finding on those points is contingent on the admissibility...