Opinion ID: 2375230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the jurisdiction of the superior court

Text: The defendant goes further, and, conceding arguendo that the taxable situs of the disputed property was North Kingstown rather than Providence, contends that the superior court had no jurisdiction to grant relief under § 44-5-26 because plaintiff failed to comply with §§ 44-5-15 and 44-5-16. Those provisions, as construed in Ewing v. Tax Assessor, supra, and Sayles Finishing Plants, Inc. v. Toomey, 95 R.I. 471, require a taxpayer to file a reasonably adequate account of all his ratable estate as a condition precedent to a suit for relief from an alleged overassessment. The challenge to the assessment on account No. 02 523 301, however, is to its legality and not to its amount. In such circumstances, It is to be noted that by the very terms of the statute a taxpayer is entitled to a judicial review of an assessment which he claims to be illegal, as distinguished from excessive, without the prior requirement of making an account. Sayles Finishing Plants, Inc., supra, at 480, 188 A.2d AT 96. The defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the summary judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.