Dresser v. Hopkinton
This text of 71 A. 534 (Dresser v. Hopkinton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
As a rule, personal property is taxable in the town in which the owner resides. P. S., c. 56, s. 1; Kent v. Exeter, 68 N. H. 469. There are, however, exceptions to this rule (P. S., c. 56, ss. 10, 12, 16, 18; Laws 1905, c. 15; Conn. River Lumber Co. v. Columbia, 62 N. H. 286; Coe v. Errol, 62 N. H. 803; Winkley v. Newton, 67 N. H. 80; Winnipiseogee Paper Co. v. Northfield, 67 N. H. 365; Conn. Valley Lumber Co. v. Monroe, 71 N. H. 473); but no provision of law making an exception of the class of property here in question has been pointed out, and an examination of the statutes has disclosed none. The abatement was properly granted.
¡Exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 A. 534, 75 N.H. 138, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dresser-v-hopkinton-nh-1908.