Slosberg v. Town of Norwich
| Decision Date | 09 August 1932 |
| Citation | 162 A. 772,115 Conn. 578 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SLOSBERG v. TOWN OF NORWICH et al. |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1932.
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Proceedings in the matter of the assessment of certain property of Jacob R. Slosberg, by the Town of Norwich. From a judgment of the superior court confirming the action of the board of relief which refused to reduce the assessed valuation on the property, the property owner appeals.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and CORNELL JJ.
Where assessors arrived at correct valuation, errors, if any committed in method of computing valuation, are immaterial.
Edwin W. Higgins and George H. Gilman, both of Norwich, for appellant.
Charles V. James, of Norwich, for appellee City of Norwich.
Henry H. Pettis, of Norwich, for appellee Town of Norwich.
The finding shows that in 1930 it was a rule of the board of assessors to assess all property at full value as required by statute. General Statutes, § 1143. They determined the full value of these properties to be $25,280 and $94,900 respectively, and assessed them accordingly. The plaintiff appealed to the board of relief claiming that the true and just value of the properties was less than the amounts determined by the assessors. The board of relief did not change the valuations, but confirmed the assessment, and plaintiff appeals to the superior court. A vital question is at once presented in one of the requests for an addition to the finding, which reads: " The rule of the Board of Relief in fixing values on October 1, 1930, which rule was followed in the case of appellant's property, was to put all property in the list at 75% of its true value." The only member of the board of relief who was called to the witness stand testified:
So far as appears, this testimony is entirely uncontradicted and undisputed. If it were not true, we would expect to find other members of the board of relief called to the stand to establish the contrary. Under the circumstances, we must add the paragraphs in question to the finding.
We have then the following situation: The assessors listed these properties at full value as required by statute, while the board of relief put them in at 75 per cent. of what it deemed to be their full value. While it was undoubtedly within the power of that board to reduce the entire list of taxable properties to 75 per cent. of full values, it is equally clear that that action as applied to one or more taxpayers would result in inequality and discrimination. Its procedure in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lerner Shops of Conn., Inc. v. Town of Waterbury
...with § 12-62, Cohen would still be entitled to a legal assessment value on his own property as of May 1, 1960. Slosberg v. Norwich, 115 Conn. 578, 580, 162 A. 772. The plaintiff Cohen also claims that injunctive relief forbidding the collection from him of any tax on the list of May 1, 1960......
-
State v. Elbert
... ... Conn. 591] all cities, towns, and boroughs having city, ... police, town, or borough courts; the juvenile courts to be ... distinct from, but to be conducted by the same ... ...
-
MacLean v. Town of Darien
...findings [of the trial court] ... are obviously made ... upon all the evidence in the case" there is no remedy. Slosberg v. Norwich, 115 Conn. 578, 581, 162 A. 772 (1932). The trial court, by its own independent valuation of the property based on the evidence placed before it at trial, foun......
-
Wheaton v. City of Putnam
... ... BROWN, ... By this ... action the plaintiff, as owner of land in the town of Putnam, ... seeks injunctive relief and damages against the defendant ... incident to its ... found and in part on evidence. [126 Conn. 335] Slosberg ... v. Norwich, 115 Conn. 578, 581, 162 A. 772; Calkins ... v. Liggett Drug Co., Inc., 124 Conn ... ...