Allen v. Gleason
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. appeared on trial to the jury, that the plaintiff was, # and always had been, an inhabitant of East Windsor $ that he owned land in the town of Enfield, but never resided there; that he had for many years given in a list 0f his land in Enfield to the proper authority; that at a legal meeting of the inhabitants of the school district in which said land was situated, it was voted to build a…
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. appeared on trial to the jury, that the plaintiff was, # and always had been, an inhabitant of East Windsor $ that he owned land in the town of Enfield, but never resided there; that he had for many years given in a list 0f his land in Enfield to the proper authority; that at a legal meeting of the inhabitants of the school district in which said land was situated, it was voted to build a school-house, to effect which a tax of eight cents on the dollar was laid, and a rate-bill made out in which the name of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
This case presents two grounds to support the motion for a new trial:
1. That the charge was incorrect.
2. That the court; rejected proper evidence.
The first point depends merely on the due construction of the several statutes relating to the subject.
The statute entitled “ An act for the collection and payment of rates or taxes,”(a) in the first section, declares, “ That every inhabitant in this state shall contribute to public charges, both civil and ecclesiastical, whereof he doth or may receive benefit, &c. to be levied and collected, as is, or shall be, by law provided.” The second section…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Loomis v. StorrsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Bulkley v. FinchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Graves v. MerwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
- Rowe v. BlakesleeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836