First National Bank v. City of Hartford

The following opinion was filed April 7, 1925:

Rosenberry, J.

Counsel for the defendant claim that there can be no recovery because there is no showing that the tax levied was in fact inequitable. The contentions of counsel upon this branch of the case fail because, if the principal contention made by the plaintiff is sustained, the city of Hartford had no power or jurisdiction to levy an assessment upon the shares of stock of the plaintiff bank, and under the provisions of sec. 74.73, Stats., the plaintiff having made payment under protest, it is entitled to maintain an action to recover back…