Town of Hartford v. Champion
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 7 A. 721,54 Conn. 436 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWN OF HARTFORD v. CHAMPION. |
Samuel O. Prentice and J. H. Brocklesby, for plaintiff. Case, Maltbie & Bryant, for defendant.
This action is brought for the recovery of taxes as a debt due from the defendant to the plaintiff town, under the statute of 1881 (Sess. Laws, c. 101) which provides that "all taxes properly assessed may be recovered by any proper complaint or proceeding at law for the recovery of money, as in other cases." The only question in the case is whether the taxes were "properly assessed."
The complaint alleges that the defendant, on the first day of October, 1881, was a resident of the town of Hartford, and liable to pay taxes in said town; that on that day she was the owner of a large number of shares of the capital stock of the several insurance companies named; that she neglected to give in to the assessors a sworn list on or before the first day of November, 1881, of the taxable property owned by her on said first day of October; that the assessors thereupon filled out a list for her, putting the insurance stocks above named at $86,665, and other property owned by her, and liable to taxation, at the sum of $25,000, and added 10 per cent. of said valuations thereto. The complaint then proceeds to allege that the assessment list was never appealed from or changed; that a certain tax was duly laid by the town on the assessment list of that year, which was payable July 15, 1882, and that the amount of the defendant's tax was $1,044.07; that the collector had since that date demanded the tax of her, but that she had never paid it; and that the tax was now due, with the interest and additions provided by law.
The case was tried to the court. On the trial it appeared that the item of $25,000 was entered upon the defendant's assessment list as follows: "All taxable property not specifically mentioned, $25,000." Upon the argument of the case, the counsel for the defendant asked the court to decide that the assessment so made against her was not legal, for the reason that it did not appear from the evidence that the assessors had any knowledge whatever of any property belonging to her for which she is set in the list at the sum of $25,000, under the head of "all other taxable property not specifically mentioned," nor that they had any reasonable ground to believe that she had such property. And they asked the court to hold that there must be such facts shown to have brought to the knowledge of the assessors, and upon which they acted, as would enable the court to see that the assessors either knew that the defendant actually had such property, or that they could reasonably believe that she had it; and that, unless such facts had been shown, the court ought to hold the assessment illegal and void. The court found that in filling out and making the assessment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northeast Datacom, Inc. v. City of Wallingford
...the assessors are only required to act upon 'the best information [they] can obtain'; [General Statutes § 12-42]; Hartford v. Champion, 54 Conn. 436, 439, 7 A. 721 [1887]; and the taxpayer cannot justly complain if the assessors, acting in good faith, make an error in judgment in listing an......
-
Cooley Chevrolet Co. v. Town of West Haven
...to do so, the assessors are only required to act upon 'the best information [they] can obtain'; Rev.1958, § 12-53; Town of Hartford v. Champion, 54 Conn. 436, 439, 7 A. 721; and the taxpayer cannot justly complain if the assessors, acting in good faith, make an error in judgment in listing ......
-
City of Hartford v. Champion
...and admitted the list. The ground of the first objection is fully removed by the ruling of the court in the case of Town of Hartford v. Champion, 54 Conn. 436, 7 Atl. Rep. 721. The assessors performed their duty, and made the addition prior to the 31st day of December, 1884. At that time th......
- Brown v. Poland