White Oak Excavators, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review of Town of Wethersfield
| Decision Date | 29 July 1975 |
| Citation | 169 Conn. 253,363 A.2d 134 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WITE OAK EXCAVATORS, INC. v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD. |
Edwin A. Lassman, Hartford, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff).
Donald J. Garvey, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Hartford, for appellee-appellant (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, BOGDANSKI and LONGO, JJ.
On its assessment lists of 1968 and 1969, the town of Wethersfield assessed the plaintiff for steel which the town claimed the plaintiff owned. The plaintiff disclaimed ownership and appealed the assessment to the board of tax review of the town of Wethersfield. The board refused to erase or abate the assessment, whereupon the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas which rendered a judgment finding the plaintiff to be the owner of the structural steel. The plaintiff has appealed from that judgment. The defendant town has cross appealed from the judgment reducing the assessment made by the town assessor and not modified by the board of tax review.
The following facts are not in dispute: The plaintiff, a corporation whose principal office is located in the town of Plainville, was a general contractor for the construction of a portion of interstate route 84 for the state of Connecticut highway department. The plaintiff entered into a contract with City Iron Works for the purchase of structural steel, which City Iron Works was to fabricate and deliver to the highway construction site. The contract provided for payment to City Iron Works in the same manner that the plaintiff received payment from the state under its construction contract. Because of delays in the construction of interstate route 84 the structural steel, for which the plaintiff had contracted, had to be stored at City Iron Works' storage yard in Wethersfield as there was no room at the construction site. Although it was not entitled to payment until the plaintiff received payment from the state, City Iron Works requested payment for the fabricated steel. The plaintiff issued a purchase order for the steel on April 7, 1967, and, with its own check, paid City Iron Works for the steel. During mid-November, 1968, the defendant's assessor became aware of large quantities of steel in City Iron Works' storage yard in Wethersfield which had not been reported by it to the defendant town. The assessor sought information as to the ownership and value of the steel. City Iron Works and the state of Connecticut disclaimed ownership. Requests for information and tax forms for declaring the steel for the lists of September 1, 1968, and September 1, 1969...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Fisher
...in error and cannot stand. Botticello v. Stefanovicz, 177 Conn. 22, 27, 411 A.2d 16 (1979); White Oak Excavators, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 169 Conn. 253, 256, 363 A.2d 134 (1975); Barrett-NonPareil, Inc. v. Stoll, 168 Conn. 79, 82, 357 A.2d 481 The second issue on the plaintiffs' appeal......
-
Botticello v. Stefanovicz
...that Walter acted as Mary's authorized agent, and the conclusion therefore cannot stand. See White Oak Excavators, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 169 Conn. 253, 256, 363 A.2d 134 (1975); Barrett-Nonpareil, Inc. v. Stoll, 168 Conn. 79, 82, 357 A.2d 481 The plaintiff argues, alternatively, that......
-
Lockwood v. Killian
...was not a vital element to the testator's intent is not supported by the finding and is in error. White Oak Excavators, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 169 Conn. 253, 256, 363 A.2d 134 (1975). The court's conclusion that the $4000 provided for administration of the fund is inadequate appears t......
-
Shea v. State Emp. Retirement Commission
...plaintiff has included in her brief an appendix showing evidence on which the finding can be based. White Oak Excavators, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 169 Conn. 253, 255, 363 A.2d 134 (37 Conn.L.J., No. 5, pp. 14, 15). Other assignments of error are considered in the opinion, insofar as the......