Inhabitants of Dover v. Maine Water Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Report. This was an action of debt under tbe statute to recover a tax. Tbe defendant company owns by purchase from tbe Dover and Foxcroft Water Company, its predecessor in title, a plant in tbe villages of Dover and Foxcroft.
Read the full summary
On Report. This was an action of debt under tbe statute to recover a tax. Tbe defendant company owns by purchase from tbe Dover and Foxcroft Water Company, its predecessor in title, a plant in tbe villages of Dover and Foxcroft. At the time of the purchase the first named corporation had a contract with the Dover and Fox-croft Village Fire Corporation under which the latter paid the former for hydrant rentals fifteen hundred dollars per annum, and in addition thereto, all taxes assessed upon the property of the water company by the towns of Dover, Foxcroft and Sangerville. Prior to 1892 the…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
This is an action against a water company to recover a town tax. Payment of the tax is resisted on several grounds.
I. Exemption. The aqueducts, pipes and conduits of water companies are exempt from taxation when the town takes water therefrom for the extinguishment of fires without charge. It. S., c. 6, § 6, cl. 10. The defendants claim exemption under this provision of the statute. The claim can not be sustained. The evidence fails to show that water is so taken by the town. The water company furnishes water to a village corporation for such a purpose. But not without charge. Tt is paid for…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mayer v. Oxidation Products Co., Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
- Conzelman v. City of BristolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Inhabitants of Bucksport v. SwazeySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1933
- Tozier v. WoodworthSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
- Southern Insurance v. W. J. Hume & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1906