Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown
137 Mass. 227, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 236
Opinion
C. Allen, J.
The plaintiffs had a “ place of business ” in Watertown, within the meaning of the statute, namely, á factory where they made starch, which was put into an adjacent storehouse and there kept till sold. They did business there every day. The case is not like Little v. Cambridge, 9 Cush. 298, in this respect. The property in question was employed in the plaintiff’s business in Watertown, and was properly taxable there, under the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 24.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown, 137 Mass. 227, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 236 (Mass. 1884).
137 Mass. 227 (Barker v. Inhabitants of Watertown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hamilton Manufacturing Co. v. City of Lowell
175 N.E. 73 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Inhabitants of Duxbury v. County Commissioners
52 N.E. 535 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Winkley v. Newton
36 A. 610 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1891)