Franklin v. Warwick & Coventry Water Co.
This text of 52 A. 988 (Franklin v. Warwick & Coventry Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The first count of the declaration is incomplete, and states no cause of action. The demurrer is sustained.
The action is for the recovery of a tax under a statute. In such cases an action of the case is the proper remedy. Aldrich v. Howard, 7 R. I. 199. Heeney v. Sprague, 11 R. I. 456 and note.
The count sets out that the defendant was the owner of ratable property of the value of $40,000, upon which the tax was' assessed. It is not necessary that the property should be described in the declaration. That is a matter of evidence which can be shown in proving the tax, and this is also true of the objection that in assessing the tax the separate parcels were not separately valued and assessed as required by statute.
The demurrer to the second count is overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 A. 988, 24 R.I. 224, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-warwick-coventry-water-co-ri-1902.