Legal Opinion
Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Marston
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided July 2, 1947No. 3656PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, C. J.
Since a tax assessment is a judgment (Jaffrey v. Smith, 76 N. H. 168; Nottingham v. Company, 84 N. H. 419) it is to be assumed that the assessors made all permissible findings of fact necessary to sustain their judgment. See Hoyt v. Tilton, 81 N. H. 477; Morin v. Insurance Co., 85 N. H. 471. This being so, it is plain that the first question transferred by the Superior Court, namely, whether the tank was properly assessed by the town of Hampstead as realty, must be answered in the affirmative.
The tank in question was designed to furnish water for the sprinkler system in the shoe factory of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Piper v. MeredithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Hoyt v. TiltonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Morin v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Jaffrey v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Nottingham v. Newmarket Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of FranklinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1996
- King Ridge, Inc. v. Town of SuttonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1975
- Crown Paper Co. v. City of BerlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1997
- Hinkley & Donovan v. PaineDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1977
- Palmer v. CoulombeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.