Miner v. President & Trustees of Fredonia
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts under section 372 of the Code. From this it appeared that the plaintiff was an individual banker, who for several years previous to March 18, 1857, had a banking office and carried on the business of banking under the general law, at the village of Fredonia, where up to that date he resided with his family.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts under section 372 of the Code. From this it appeared that the plaintiff was an individual banker, who for several years previous to March 18, 1857, had a banking office and carried on the business of banking under the general law, at the village of Fredonia, where up to that date he resided with his family. He then removed his family and his personal residence to the village of Dunkirk, distant about three miles from Fredonia, but continued his banking office at the latter place, and came there daily for the…
1Opinion of the CourtDavies, J.
No complaint is made of the principle of the > assessment. It is not disputed that if the appellant was legally taxable by the respondents, in respect of his banking capital, i the assessment and tax were made and levied upon a proper j basis and just valuation. Neither is it claimed, in behalf of j the respondents, that the appellant was taxable for his personal j property generally, by the authorities of the village of Fredonia, for village purposes. At the time of the assessment, and from that time until the submission of this action, the appellant was an actual inhabitant of Dunkirk,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoyt v. . the Commissioners of TaxesNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
3Cited by8 opinions
- The People v. . DotyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- People ex rel. Knickerbocker Press v. BarkerNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- State ex rel. Davis v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Schoen v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949
- Austen v. Hudson River Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.