Case Name: Thomas R. Claringbold, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. "The Council of Newark", a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, plaintiff below, defendant in error
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1915-06-15
Citations: 5 Boyce 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas R. Claringbold, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. “The Council of Newark”, a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, plaintiff below, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 507–507

Head Matter:
Thomas R. Claringbold, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs. “The Council of Newark”, a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, plaintiff below, defendant in error.
Where real property belonging to a taxable was used as a storehouse for the carrying on of a liquor merchant’s business, the fact that the owner had a liquor merchant’s license and was using the premises therefor was a fact which the assessor was properly authorized to consider in determining the value of the property for taxation.
(June 15, 1915.)
Judges Boyce, Conrad and Heisel sitting.
Robert H. Richards for plaintiff in error.
Charles B. Evans and Robert G. Harman for defendant in error.
Supreme Court,
June Term, 1915.
Error (No. 5, January Term, 1915) to the Superior Court for New Castle County.
Action Below (No. 128, September Term, 1914) by the Council of Newark, a municipal corporation, against Thomas R. Claringbold. There was judgment for plaintiff, ante 133, 90 Ail. 1130, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Opinion:
Conrad, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
The opinion delivered by the Chief Justice in the court below, and the conclusions reached by the Court and reported in — Boyce —, 90 Atl. 1130, represent the views and opinions of the judges in this court; and we are fully satisfied that "the assessor and 'The Council of Newark' in assessing and valuing the real estate of the defendant below, plaintiff in error, had the right to take into consideration the fact that the defendant below was at the time the holder of a license to sell intoxicating liquors, as a liquor merchant, at the store house located on and constituting a part of the real estate of the defendant below."
We find no error in the proceedings of the court below and therefore affirm the judgment therein rendered.