Swanton Village v. Town of Highgate
| Decision Date | 07 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 104-69,104-69 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | SWANTON VILLAGE v. TOWN OF HIGHGATE. |
Jay Chaffee, Swanton, for plaintiff.
Webster & Tyler, St. Albans, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ.
Swanton Village, the appellee here, sued appellant Town of Highgate in the Franklin County Court in an action under the common counts to recover taxes paid under protest to the defendant town. The case comes here under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 2386 by virtue of which provision the trial court has certified four questions for our determination, upon which we are to render final judgment or remand the proceedings as justice and the state of the cause require.
After the cause had been passed to this Court for determination of the questions certified, appellee, Swanton Village, presented to this Court a motion to amend its complaint by adding a supplementary count thereto, which amendment it seeks to have allowed in this Court.
We first consider the motion of the plaintiff to amend its complaint in this Court. Our rule is that pleadings may be amended in substance at any state of the proceedings in the discretion of the court, and the statute so permits. 12 V.S.A. § 1132; Neverett v. Towne, 121 Vt. 447, 452, 159 A.2d 345.
The amendment sought here by the plaintiff is to add a supplementary count to its complaint which, in substance, asserts that the grand list of the defendant for the tax year was invalid, void and illegal because the listers of the defendant town did not comply with 32 V.S.A. § 3431 and 32 V.S.A. § 4152(3) as well as other alleged non-compliance by the listers of Highgate with other sections of the statute.
The effect of this amendment, if allowed, would be to predicate the action of the plaintiff upon grounds not previously considered by the trial court, as well as upon grounds which were not included in the appellee's 'Objections to the Validity of Taxes' as filed with the town clerk of Swanton, a certified copy of which is in the record before us.
The record makes clear that the amendment of the complaint moved for in this Court by the plaintiff did not constitute one of the grounds specified by the plaintiff, as required by 32 V.S.A. § 5292(a):
'A taxpayer shall not contest the validity of any tax assessed against his person, personal property or real estate nor the validity of the action of the listers or selectmen in assessing such tax nor the validity of any grand list unless the taxpayer filed his objections to the validity thereof, in the office of the town clerk wherein the tax is assessed, within a period of two months from November 15 of each year in which the tax is assessed.' See City of Winooski v. Matte, 125 Vt. 463, 218 A.2d 458.
While not denying that in appropriate instances this Court has the power to allow amendment of proceedings in certain cases, we are of the opinion that the amendment to its pleadings moved by the plaintiff here can be better handled on the trial court level. We think that this is particularly true when a case comes to this Court only for the determination of certified questions submitted under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 2386. The motion is denied as a matter of discretion.
We now turn to consideration of the questions certified here for our determination by the Franklin County Court. While four of such questions were here certified, the appellant Town of Highgate has seen fit to brief only one of the questions presented. By its failure to file a brief on the three other questions certified, the appellant has waived their determination here. March v. Beckman et ux., 98 Vt. 293, 295, 127 A. 296.
The only question remaining for our determination is set forth in the following language:
'Must a taxpayer who is seeking to challenge the validity of a portion of a tax, pay to the taxing authority, without protest, that portion which is not challenged in order to preserve a cause of action as to the portion challenged.'
The tax here in question, paid under protest by the Village of Swanton, was imposed upon an electric energy producing plant owned by the Village but located in the Town of Highgate. Swanton's objections to the validity of the tax, as filed with the town clerk of Highgate, was based on the assertion that the listers of Highgate failed to apply the same standards of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stroop v. Rutherford County
...v. Akin Products Company, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 409 (1955), aff'd, 155 Tex. 348, 286 S.W.2d 110 (1956); Swanton Village v. Town of Highgate, 128 Vt. 401, 264 A.2d 804 (1970); Great Northern Ry. Co. v. State, 200 Wash. 392, 93 P.2d 694 (1939); Annot., 142 A.L.R. 1198 (1943); 72 Am.Jur.2d ......
-
Petition of Green Mountain Power Corp.
...up the claims of the appellants which have been briefed; however, those questions not briefed are waived. Swanton Village v. Town of Highgate, 128 Vt. 401, 403, 264 A.2d 804 (1970). FUEL ADJUSTMENT The Board based its finding that a fuel adjustment clause would be appropriate here in part u......
-
Hojaboom v. Town of Swanton
...the listers' noncompliance with relevant statutes, he must file his objections as required by § 5292(a). Swanton Village v. Town of Highgate, 128 Vt. 401, 402, 264 A.2d 804, 805 (1970). No such objections need be filed where the action is not one which questions the validity of the tax but ......
-
Town of Barnet v. Palazzi Corp.
...However, the parties have chosen not to brief the second of these, and therefore, we will forego its consideration. Swanton v. Highgate, 128 Vt. 401, 264 A.2d 804 (1970). Stated in the context of the facts of this case, the remaining certified question is twofold in nature: (1) Whether stat......