Vandyke v. Carleton
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a horse, which was the individual property of the plaintiff, taken by the defendant, as tax-collector of Stewartstown, and sold to enforce collection of a tax assessed to the firm name of VanDyke, Peabody & Co., for the year 1877. Facts found by a referee.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a horse, which was the individual property of the plaintiff, taken by the defendant, as tax-collector of Stewartstown, and sold to enforce collection of a tax assessed to the firm name of VanDyke, Peabody & Co., for the year 1877. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff was a member of the lumbering firm of Peabody, VanDyke & Co.; and there was no firm having the name VanDyke, Peabody & Co. The tax was assessed on a lot of logs belonging to Peabodjq VanDyke & Co.; and the plaintiff, being the active member of that firm, living in Stewartstown, was duly notified of it, but refused…
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
The plaintiff Peabody, and some person or persons represented by the word “Co.,” were joint owners of the property on which this tax was assessed. For their own convenience they had established a copartnership between themselves, and assumed a style or appellation in which the name of Peabody stood first and that of the plaintiff second. In assessing the tax, the selectmen placed the name of the plaintiff first and that of Peabody second, and those names appear in the same order in the list delivered to the collector with his warrant. For this reason it is contended that the warrant gave the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bailey v. CooperSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Canaan v. Grafton CountySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1888