Randall v. Watson
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Bill in Equity, to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title to land in Grafton. Facts found by the court. George H. Randall had title to twenty-one sixtieths of the premises in question, April 1, 1894, and subsequently conveyed the same to the plaintiff. In 1894 the premises were assessed to the Ruggles & Randall Mica Company, in the non-resident list, and were afterwards sold by the collector for the tax of that year and conveyed to the defendant Watson.
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity, to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title to land in Grafton. Facts found by the court. George H. Randall had title to twenty-one sixtieths of the premises in question, April 1, 1894, and subsequently conveyed the same to the plaintiff. In 1894 the premises were assessed to the Ruggles & Randall Mica Company, in the non-resident list, and were afterwards sold by the collector for the tax of that year and conveyed to the defendant Watson. George H. Randall resided in Grafton from 1880 until 1896. In November or December, 1893, he moved part of his goods to Boston, and stayed…
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
The real estate was improperly taxed as nonresident. At the time of the assessment, George H. Randall, one of the tenants in common, was in the possession and occupation of the premises. The selectmen knew of his ownership and occupancy, and that his absence on the first of April, 1894, was only temporary. He never refused to be taxed for the whole property. It should have been assessed as resident to George H. Randall. P. S., c. 56, ss. 14, 22, 24; Perley v. Stanley, 59 N. H. 587; Perham v. Fibre Co., 64 N. H. 2.
If under any circumstances the property could have been taxed to the Mica…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Perham v. Haverhill Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Perley v. StanleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880