White v. Town of Portland
Decision Date | 07 April 1893 |
Parties | WHITE v. TOWN OF PORTLAND. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Middlesex county.
Proceeding by Josiah J. White and wife against the town of Portland. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Pending the appeal the wife died. Affirmed.
F. H. Russell and E. A. Smith, for appellants.
C. J. Cole and J. M. Murdock, for appellee.
CARPENTER, J. Appeal from the doings of the board of relief, in refusing to reduce the tax list of the appellants for the year 1889. The superior court rendered judgment for the town March 2, 1892. The appellants appealed to this court.
The first reason of appeal is that the court erred in ordering the trial to proceed in the absence of Josiah J. White. The facts relating to that matter are these: Josiah J. White is the surviving appellant; his wife, Eliza T. White, who owned the property assessed, having died ) ending the appeal. Her husband, as administrator, entered to prosecute the appeal. The case having been reached for trial, counsel for the appellants moved for a continuance on the ground that said White was ill, and unable to attend court. The motion was supported by the certificate of a physician, purporting to have been sworn to before a notary public in Brooklyn, N. Y. The court declined to continue the case, and ordered the trial to proceed. The reasons for this action are given as follows: In relation to this matter, it is enough to say that it is a matter of discretion, which we cannot with propriety review. If more was needed, we should say, unhesitatingly, that we think the discretion of the court was wisely exercised.
The second error assigned is that the court erred in excluding the evidence as to the amount of the assessments and value of the property of the quarry companies. On the trial, counsel for the appellants offered in evidence the assessment lists for the year 1889, of three corporations, all extensively engaged in quarrying and marketing brownstone, and located and doing business, and taxable, in said Portland, and inquired of a witness as to the value on October 1, 1889, of the property of said companies. The appellee objected to the introduction of this evidence. The appellants claimed it for the purpose of showing that the property of said companies was assessed at a lower rate of valuation than the property of the appellants, and that the property of the appellants was assessed at a higher rate than the property of the town, taken together. In the lists so offered the property of each of said companies was entered in a single gross sum. There are two possible ways in which a taxpayer may be aggrieved, and a grievance in either way may entitle him to relief: The first is a valuation of the property in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lerner Shops of Conn., Inc. v. Town of Waterbury
...his property was bearing a disproportionately high tax burden because of the defendant's failure to comply with § 12-64. White v. Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 21, 26 A. 342; Sibley v. Middlefield, 143 Conn. 100, 105, 120 A.2d 77; see also Greenwoods Co. v. New Hartford, 65 Conn. 461, 463, 32 A. 9......
-
O'Brien v. Board of Tax Review
...relief in a proceeding such as this on the ground that the property of other taxpayers is assessed at too low a rate. White v. Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 22, 26 A. 342. Evidence of disproportionate assessments of other properties, however, may be considered in an action such as this in relation......
-
Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Tel. Co.
...152 A. 306; Nichols v. New Britain, 77 Conn. 695, 698, 60 A. 655; Wheeler v. Thomas, 67 Conn. 577, 579, 35 A. 499; White v. Town of Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 25, 26 A. 342. It was proper for the company to show that the position taken by the union during the negotiations leading up to the cont......
-
State v. Henry
... ... 556; ... State v. Pankey, 104 N.C. 840, 10 S.E. 315; ... People v. Diaz, 6 Cal. 248; White v ... Town, of Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 26 A. 342; ... Vickers v. Hill, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) ... 307; ... ...