Evans v. Newell

6 Citing cases

  1. Acme Corp. v. Mowry, C.T

    59 R.I. 163 (R.I. 1937)   Cited 1 times
    In Acme Corp. v. Mowry, supra, this court construed the requirement of the provision that "separate tracts or parcels shall be separately described and valued so far as practicable," and at page 168 stated that such provision did not "require the platting of assessable land of the town into lots numbered to each owner, nor does it require meticulous description by metes and bounds.

    They must separately describe and separately value separate tracts, unless it is impracticable to do so. If they fail to do so, the assessment is invalid. Young v. Joslin, 13 R.I. 675; Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38; Taylor v. Narragansett Pier Co., 19 R.I. 123; Clark v. Greene, 23 R.I. 118. The proviso in such a case is of no aid in curing the invalidity.

  2. Matteson v. Warwick Coventry Water Co.

    28 R.I. 570 (R.I. 1908)   Cited 10 times
    In Matteson v. Warwick Coventry Water Co., 28 R.I. 570, 581, we held as follows: "The time for rendering an account must follow the day and hour established for the valuation and ownership of the ratable estate of the taxpayer, in order that he may be able to render a true and exact account thereof, as required by statute."

    So the expression "Pipes in streets 60,000" is manifestly too indefinite, especially in view of the uncontradicted fact that there were other companies having pipes in the streets of the same town, and that the pipes of the defendant company were less in extent than those of other companies. This description falls directly within the objection held to be fatal in Young v. Joslin, 13 R.I. 677, and in Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38, where the court says: "Again, the description is so vague it in no way identifies the land assessed. The owner could not know from it what lands were assessed to him nor whether the lands of others might be included in the assessment, Such an assessment imposes no duty upon a taxpayer.

  3. Tefft v. Lewis

    27 R.I. 9 (R.I. 1905)   Cited 1 times

    The provisions of said act in regard to the assessment and remittance of the tax are for the benefit of the taxpayers and are also mandatory. 1 Cooley on Taxation, 480; Young v. Joslin, 13 R.I. 675; Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38; McTwiggan v. Hunter, ib. 776. Judge Cooley, supra, at p. 480, quoting Field, J., in French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 506-11, says: "But when the requisitions prescribed are intended for the protection of the citizen, and to prevent a sacrifice of his property, and by a disregard of which his rights might be and generally would be injuriously affected, they are not directory but mandatory.

  4. Clark v. Greene

    23 R.I. 118 (R.I. 1901)   Cited 3 times

    In Young v. Joslin, 13 R.I. 675, it was held that the statutory provision was for the benefit of the tax-payer, and hence mandatory, and that a failure to comply with it rendered a tax void. Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38, held that a description which does not identify the land assessed imposes no duty upon a tax-payer. Mowry v. Slatesville Mills, 20 R.I. 94, is to the same effect, and in that case an assessment upon separate tracts not separately described was held to be invalid.

  5. Kettelle v. Warwick Coventry Water Co.

    23 R.I. 114 (R.I. 1901)   Cited 2 times

    Parol evidence cannot be used to supplement an assessment description too indefinite for the identification of the land assessed. Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38. In Taylor v. Narragansett Pier Company, 19 R.I. 123, several parcels of land were assessed as "beach."

  6. Taylor v. Narragansett Pier Co.

    19 R.I. 123 (R.I. 1895)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Conlon, this court held that a statute that conferred on mayors within this state "[t]he unrestrained power of selecting the favored recipients of a license" to engage in a temporary business for the sale of goods in their respective cities; State v. Conlon, supra, 487; violated article first, ยง 1, of the Connecticut constitution.

    As the assessment was not in conformity with the requirement of the statute, it must be held to be invalid. Young v. Joslin, 13 R.I. 675; Evans v. Newell, 18 R.I. 38. As follows: