Warwick & Coventry Water Co. v. Carr.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1902 |
| Citation | 24 R.I. 226,52 A. 1030 |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Parties | WARWICK & COVENTRY WATER CO. v. CARR. Town Treasurer. |
Action by the Warwick & Coventry Water Company against Willis A. Carr, as town treasurer. Petition of defendant for a new trial. Petition granted.
Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and ROGERS, JJ.
John J. Arnold, for plaintiff.
George T. Brown and Elmer J. Rathbun, for defendant.
STINESS, C. J. 1. The plaintiff sues to recover money paid under protest for taxes in the town of West Greenwich, in the years 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898. The trial judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant petitions for a new trial, alleging error. Several objections to the taxes are set forth in the declaration and were claimed at the trial. The vote of the town in 1895 was: "Voted, that a tax of twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of the valuation of the ratable estate of the town be assessed and collected for the purpose of keeping the highways in repair for the ensuing year, and also voted that a tax of seventy-five cents on each one hundred dollars of the valuation of said ratable estates be assessed and collected for the purpose of paying the expenses of the town for the ensuing year, Including state tax and school appropriation, and also a special tax of twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars for paying the indebtedness of the town, all of said taxes to be assessed, collected, and paid into the town treasury in accordance with a vote of the town passed on the 23d day of May, 1887." Under this vote the several amounts were incorporated into one assessment of $1.25 on each $100, and the plaintiff claims that this was" illegal, because there should have been three assessments of three separate taxes instead of one.
2. Pub. St. c. 34, § 5, and Gen. Laws, c. 30, § 4. provide that towns may, at any legal meeting, grant and vote such sums of money as they shall judge necessary for various purposes, including schools, highways, and town charges and expenses. Pub. St. c. 43, § 1, and Gen. Laws c. 46, § 1, also provide that a tax may be levied when the electors qualified to vote on that subject are legally assembled for the purposes authorized by law. The vote in question, stating the percentages for the different purposes, amounts only to appropriations therefor, and, all together, they make the exact sum for which the tax was assessed.
Notice of the meeting was duly given, and the fact that a meeting for the election of officers was held at the same time does not render the meeting illegal or void, and it is not shown that there was in fact any illegality in the conduct of the meeting. The meeting for the election of town officers is to be held (Gen. Laws, c. 37) at such time as may be by law or vote provided, unless otherwise directed by law. Pub. Laws, c. 1109 (Jan., 1892), relating to the town of West Greenwich, cited by the plaintiff, provided only for the time the polls were to be kept open, and did not prohibit other business. The electors were therefore legally assembled, and notice was given of the levying of a tax. It was not a special meeting, requiring a special request. Gen. Laws, c. 37, §§ 4, 6. The town had previously fixed the last Monday in May as the time for the election of town officers, and hence the meeting in 1895 was properly held. At that time the date was changed for subsequent years to the first Monday in June, but for the reasons stated the meetings in 1896, 1897, and 1898 were also legally held. Some other objections to the validity of the meeting are stated in the brief, but as they are not set forth in the declaration, and are not such as necessarily render the meetings void, we need not consider them in detail.
3. Objection is also made that the time of the assessment of the tax is not mentioned in the vote. In 1887 the town voted that the taxes be assessed in the month of September of each year. The taxes in question were assessed in accordance with that vote, and the plaintiff claims that it does not comply with the terms of the statute (Gen. Laws, c. 46, § 4), requiring the assessors to assess the tax "at the time ordered by the town," because specifying a month is not fixing a time. Gen. Laws, c. 46, § 6, provides that time for bringing in accounts shall be given by the assessors "before assessing any tax." Taking the two sections together, we do not think that the intention was to fix a particular day on which the assessment must be made. The word "time" is of a more general character, and implies a discretion, within fixed limits, which may be necessary or convenient for the assessors. In re Town Council of Cranston, 18 R. I. 417, 28 Atl. 608. In McAdam v. Honey, 20 R. I. 351, 39 Atl. 189, it was held that the assessment is deemed to have been made on the day following the last date on which tax payers were notified to bring in an account of their ratable estates. Following that rule,, the assessment in the present case is in the month of September, which is in accordance with the vote of the town, and hence within the language of the statute "at the time ordered by the town."
4. Objection is also made that the assessments are void because they were not dated, as required by Gen. Laws, c. 46, § 20. We think that this is a directory provision, and not of a character to invalidate the assessment. It was so considered in McAdam v. Honey, otherwise the court could not have disregarded the date of May 10, 1897, and have held the assessment to have been made on February 27, 1897. See, also, Young v. Joslin, 13 R. I. 677.
5. Another objection is that the assessors did not comply with Gen. Laws, c. 45, § 4, in separately describing and valuing separate tracts or parcels. It appears that the plaintiff carried in to the assessors an account of its ratable estate, describing the real estate as follows: "Water rights in and land at Carr's pond, and pipe line with its appurtenances leading from Carr's pond, value thirty-four thousand dollars ($34,000)." The assessment as made was as follows:
Warwick A Coventry Water Company, for pipe and water rights and right of way to Carr's pond
Warwick & Coventry Water Company, land and dam at Carr's pond
In Young v. Joslin the provision for separate description was held to be for the benefit of the taxpayer and mandatory....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Territory of Arizona v. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co.
...1, 23 Am. St. Rep. 546, 7 So. 525; Dallas Title Co. v. Oak Cliffe, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 217, 27 S.W. 1036; Warwick etc. Water Co. v. Carr, 24 R.I. 226, 52 A. 1030; San Antonio v. Raley (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S.W. 180. "Where the lots are assessed according to the description and grouping in the o......
-
Wallapai Mining & Development Co. v. Territory of Arizona
... ... Co., 4 Nev. 338; ... State v. Metz, 31 N.J.L. 365; Warwick Water ... Company v. Carr, 24 R.I. 226, 52 A. 1030. We think that ... ...
-
Champlain Realty Co. v. Town of Brattleboro, 300.
...N. E. 565; Forsyth v. County Com'rs (Mass.) 123 N. E. 699; Jackson v. Town of Union, 82 Conn. 266, 73 Atl. 773; Warwick & Coventry Water Co. v. Carr, 24 R. I. 226, 52 Atl. 1030; Portland, etc., R. Co. v. City of Saco, 60 Me. 196; Savings & Loan Co. v. City of San Francisco, 146 Cal. 673, 80......
-
Regular Democratic Club of Little Ferry v. Tracy
...Co. v. Vineland Light & Power Co., 72 N.J.Eq. 305, 65 A. 504; Budd v. Camden Horse R. Co., 61 N.J.Eq. 543, 48 A. 1028, affirmed 63 N.J.Eq. 804, 52 A. 1030; Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose, et al. v. Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Moose of the World et al., N.J. Ch.......