Hamersley v. Franey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for money had and received; brought to the Court of Common Pleas, and reserved for advice upon the following facts: On the 5th of July, 1871, the plaintiff paid the defendant $214.04, involuntarily, and to save his iiroperty from seiz ure.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money had and received; brought to the Court of Common Pleas, and reserved for advice upon the following facts: On the 5th of July, 1871, the plaintiff paid the defendant $214.04, involuntarily, and to save his iiroperty from seiz ure. The defendant was then the duly appointed tax collector for the town and city of Hartford, and the south school district of Hartford, and the money so paid was claimed by him as the amount legally due for taxes upon the sum of $11,200, set in the list of the plaintiff for the year 1870, in the revised tax list of Hartford, in the column headed “…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, J.
The plaintiff’s note of $11,200 was clearly taxable by the 8th section of the “ act relating to the assessment and collection of taxes,” Gen. Stat., page 709. The language of the act is as follows: “ Personal property, in this state and elsewhere, not expressly exempted by this act, shall be deemed, for the purposes of taxation, to include all moneys, credits, dioses in action, bonds, notes,” &c. That this language • is broad enough to include a promissory note, although given on an agreement that the sum stated therein should' be without interest for a period of time, cannot admit of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goddard v. Town of SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
- Adam v. town of LitchfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- City & County of San Francisco v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Comptoir National D'Escompte de Paris v. Board of AssessorsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1900
- Lamar v. PalmerSupreme Court of Florida · 1881