Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Manufg Co. v. Town of Gilford
| Decision Date | 15 July 1887 |
| Citation | 10 A. 849,64 N.H. 337 |
| Parties | WINNIPISEOGEE LAKE COTTON & WOOLEN MANUFG CO. v. TOWN OF GILFORD |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Reserved case from Belknap county; Bingham, Judge, presiding.
Appeal from a refusal of the selectmen of Gilford to abate a part of a tax assessed by them in 1884. Pacts found by referees.
The value of the plaintiffs' property described in the petition, and taxable in Gilford in April, 1884, is $275,000. Other property in that town was assessed at that date at 65 per cent. of its value. The value of the plaintiffs' dams, gates, no wage, and reservoir rights in that town is $140,000; and the value of its other estate in fee there situated is $135,000. In ascertaining the value of the plaintiffs' dams, gates, flowage, and reservoir rights, the referees took into consideration that this property in Gilford has greater value because it can be controlled and profitably used in Gilford by the plaintiffs for the benefit of mills situated elsewhere, and also that the market and taxable value of said mills and other estate and property of the plaintiffs situated elsewhere is increased by reason of these reservoir rights being capable of being controlled for their benefit, and, in finding the value of the reservoir rights situated in Gilford, the referees made such adjustment and apportionment of these valuable incidents or advantages between the plaintiffs' reservoir rights at Gilford, and the mills and other estate and property of the plaintiffs situated elsewhere benefited thereby, as seemed to them lawfully and justly to belong respectively to each class of said property, and as should avoid any double taxation. The referees also took into consideration the pecuniary advantages and disadvantages to this property by reason of certain contracts which existed between the plaintiffs, as owners of the reservoir rights, and other mill-owners having privileges on the stream below.
The plaintiffs moved to recommit the report to the referees to report the following additional facts, if they found them proved. This motion was denied, subject to exception, and any question of discretion raised by the plaintiffs' motion is reserved. (1) The mills "situated elsewhere" are in Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts. The enhanced value of those mills, by reason of these reservoir rights being capable of being controlled, and being actually controlled, for their benefit, is fully included in the assessment of the millsin Massachusetts for taxation there, without diminution on account of any taxation of the reservoir rights in New Hampshire. (2) The plaintiffs own no mills elsewhere than at Gilford affected by the management of this property. (3) The stock of the plaintiff corporation is owned entirely by the proprietors of the locks and canals on the Merrimac river at Lowell, and the Essex Company of Lawrence, both corporations under the laws of Massachusetts.
Daniel Barnard, T. J. Whipple, Jeremiah Smith, and W. E. Buck, for plaintiff. Jewell & Stone, S. E. Clark, Albin & Martin, and M. W. Tappan, for defendant.
CARPENTER, J. Real estate must be taxed in the town where it is situated. Gen. Laws, c. 53, § 2; Id. c. 54, § 11. "The words 'land,' 'lands,' or 'real estate' shall include lands, tenements, hereditaments, and all rights thereto and interests therein." Gen. Laws, c. 1, § 20. Easements are taxable; if appurtenant, they are in general taxed with and as a part of the land to which they belong. Easements in gross must necessarily be valued and taxed separately from the land out of which they are granted.
Water-power or rights in a reservoir of water are an interest in the land upon and by which they are created, and by the express terms of the statute must be taxed in the town where the land of which they area part is situated. Although they may be so far from that and, and annexed to land situated in another town, as to pass without special mention in a conveyance of the latter, their geographical location is not thereby changed. The title to and occupancy of the land creating water-power or reservoir rights may be in one person, and of the power and rights in another. In each case, each must be separately assessed. The plaintiffs own both the reservoir rights and the dam, gates, and land-flowage out of which they issue. Their water-rights have not been severed from their lands in Gilford, and annexed to their mills and other real estate situated elsewhere. By a conveyance of the former they would pass, and by a conveyance of the latter they would not pass, without special mention. If the reverse were true, they would be none the less real estate situated in Gilford. They were properly valued and taxed with the lands in Gilford....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...It has always been the accepted rule that a state cannot lay a tax upon realty not within its jurisdiction. Winnipiseogee, etc., Co. v. Gilford, 64 N. H. 337, 349, 10 A. 849. The same principle applies to tangible personal property. Union, etc., Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U. S. 194, 26 S. Ct. 36,......
-
Public Service Co. v. New Hampton
...be used as an integral part of an entire system and that its value may be enhanced for this very reason. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Gilford, 64 N.H. 337, 10 A. 849. In all the circumstances here it is obvious that ordinary standards may not furnish an adequate guide to d......
- American Bauxite Company v. Board of Equalization of Saline County
-
STORRIE PROJECT WATER USERS ASS'N v. GONZALES
...reason and logic. Whiting-Plover Paper Co. v. Town of Lynwood, 198 Wis. 590, 225 N.W. 177, 64 A.L.R. 140; Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Gilford, 64 N.H. 337, 10 A. 849; Slatersville Finishing Co. v. Greene, 40 R.I. 410, 101 A. 226, L.R.A.1917F, 585; Union Water Co. v. Aubur......