Bailey v. Cooper
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Replevin, for 2,600 feet of boards. The defendant was the tax collector of Nottingham in 1914 and 1915. In the tax warrant committed to him in 1914 was a tax against Charles W. Bailey & Son, a firm composed of Charles W. Bailey and his son, the plaintiff in this action.
Read the full summary
Replevin, for 2,600 feet of boards. The defendant was the tax collector of Nottingham in 1914 and 1915. In the tax warrant committed to him in 1914 was a tax against Charles W. Bailey & Son, a firm composed of Charles W. Bailey and his son, the plaintiff in this action. They were residents of Hampstead, and as a firm were operating a lumber lot in Nottingham in the spring of 1914 and were using in their business several horses which were the property of Charles W. Bailey and which, being in the town of Nottingham on the first day of April 1914, were there taxed to the firm. The son in behalf…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The horses were properly assessed to Charles W. Bailey & Son in whose care they were. That the firm had the care of them on the first day of April, 1914, appears from a reasonable interpretation of the facts reported. The fact that they were the individual property of one of the partners, who did not disclose his ownership, does not render the assessment to the firm illegal; for the statute (P. S., c. 56, s. 10) provides: “Animals liable to be taxed kept in any town . . . owned by a person not resident therein, shall be taxed in such town, to the owner or person having the care thereof, on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vandyke v. CarletonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bull v. GowingSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Haverhill Trust Co. v. BucklandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932