History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dresser v. Hopkinton
75 N.H. 138
| N.H. | 1908
|
Check Treatment

As a rule, personal property is taxable in the town in which the owner resides. P. S., e. 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. 303; 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.

Case Details

Case Name: Dresser v. Hopkinton
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 1, 1908
Citation: 75 N.H. 138
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.