Dresser v. Hopkinton

71 A. 534, 75 N.H. 138, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 57
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 1, 1908·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bingham, J.

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.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dresser v. Hopkinton, 71 A. 534, 75 N.H. 138, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 57 (N.H. 1908).

71 A. 534 (Dresser v. Hopkinton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bull v. Gowing
160 A. 475 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1932)