Bill in Equity, to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title to land in Grafton. Facts found by the court. George H. Randall had title to twenty-one sixtieths of the premises in question, April 1, 1894, and subsequently conveyed the same to the plaintiff. In 1894 the premises were assessed to the Ruggles & Randall Mica Company, in the non-resident list, and were afterwards sold by the collector for the tax of that year and conveyed to the defendant Watson.
¶1
The real estate was improperly taxed as nonresident. At the time of the assessment, George H. Randall, one of the tenants in common, was in the possession and occupation of the premises. The selectmen knew of his ownership and occupancy, and that his absence on the first of April, 1894, was only temporary. He never refused to be taxed for the whole property. It should have been assessed as resident to George H. Randall. P. S.,
c.
56, ss. 14, 22, 24;
Perley
v. Stanley, 59 N. H. 587;
Perham
v.
Fibre Co.,
64 N. H. 2.
¶2
If under any circumstances the property could have been taxed to the Mica Company, it could not have been taxed as non-resident, because that corporation was a domestic one, with its principal place of business in Grafton, where its articles of association had been filed.
Perham
v.
Fibre Co., supra.
George H. Randall never requested that the property be taxed as non-resident, and the plaintiff is not estopped from objecting to the improper assessment which rendered the collector’s sale invalid. This view renders it unnecessary to consider the other objections to the tax title. The exceptions to the order for an accounting are waived.
