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, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution.Summary of this case from State v. Santiago
June 8, 1895.
A tax assessment on six separate and distinct parcels of land designated in the assessment as "Beach," where no circumstances appear to show that it is not practicable to describe and value them separately is invalid, 1, because it is not in conformity with Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 42, § 4, which requires that "separate tracts or parcels shall be separately described and valued as far as practicable," and 2, because it is so vague and uncertain that it does not identify the lands assessed.
ASSUMPSIT for taxes. Certified from the Common Pleas Division on an agreed statement of facts.
Frederick C. Olney, for plaintiff.
Benjamin W. Case, for defendant.
At the time of the assessment, the defendant owned six separate and distinct parcels of land shown on the plat put in evidence on the trial and particularly described in the account of the ratable estate of the defendant a copy of which account is annexed to the agreed statement of facts. In the assessment, these various parcels instead of being separately described and valued, as required by Pub. Stat. R.I. cap. 42, § 4, are all included under the designation " Beach." No circumstances appear to show that it was not practicable separately to describe and value the several parcels. 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.
SEC. 4. Taxes on real estate shall be assessed to the owners, and separate tracts or parcels shall be separately described and valued as far as practicable.
The assessment must also be held to be invalid because it is so vague and uncertain that it does not identify the lands assessed. The owner could not know from it what lands were assessed, nor whether the lands of other persons might not be included in it. Evans v. Newell, supra, and cases cited.
The case is remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment for the defendant for its costs.