CHAPTER XXIV.-Discriminating duty and classification of articles,
Non-enumerated articles,

Free list, remedy for illegal duties,

False entry, false invoice, &c.,

CHAPTER XXV.-Officers, duties, liabilities, &c. Internal revenue,

Lien of tax sale of land,

Special taxes,

Distilled spirits,

Deficiency, assessment,

Rectifiers and wholesale liquor dealers,

CHAPTER XXVI.--Manufacturers of tobacco, cigars and snuff,

Banks, specific objects, checks, &c., .

Legacy and succession tax, remedy for illegal tax,
Lien for tax,
Forfeitures,

THE LAW OF TAXATION.

SUPPLEMENT

(TO EACH CHAPTER)

FROM 1877 TO JANUARY 1, 1883.

CHAPTER I.

NATURE OF THE POWER OF TAXATION.

Kuntz v. Davidson County, 6 Lea (Tenn.), 65. An alien inhabitant of Tennessee is liable to poll taxes, under the Constitution. (Page 4, note 1.)

CHAPTER II.

PURPOSE MUST BE PUBLIC.

State v. Englewood Drainage Comrs. 41 N. J. L. 154. A special taxing district of a part of a township, may be created for drainage; special assessments on benefits. State v. Fuller, 11 Vroom, 165, affi'd. (Page 16, note 2.)

Rutherford v. Magnes, 97 Penn. St. 78. 8. P., Such an act is constitutional. But the provisions for distress do not apply to assessments imposed prior to the tenancy of the person proceeded against. (Page 16, note 2.)

Updike v. Wright, 81 Ill. 49. The provision of Art. 4, § 31, Const. 1870, that legislature "may pass laws permitting the owners or occupants of lands to construct drains and ditches, for agricultural and sanitary purposes, across the lands of others," does not authorize an act to construct a levee along the Wabash river by special assessment.

The people of a district have the right to vote upon a proper act, and a law imposing taxes for drainage without a vote is unconstitutional. The provisions of Art. 9, § 9, as to special assessments, is confined to cities, towns, and villages; does not extend to counties or districts. (Page 16, note 2.)

Citizens Savings Bk. v. City of Topeka, 3 Dill. 376. Bonds issued by a municipality, in aid of a manufacturing enterprise owned by private persons, are void. (Page 19, note 2.)

CHAPTER III.

LIMITATIONS ON IMPOSITION OF LOCAL TAXATION.

Apportionment of Tax.-Albany Bank v. Maher, 13 Rep. 325. An act which directs the assessment of a tax upon a body of individuals, selected from a gen

eral class, without apportionment or equality as between them and the general class, and without giving them an opportunity to be heard, is unconstitutional. (Page 22.)

State v. Fuller, 39 N. J. L. 576. An act authorizing committee of township, on petition of owners of land lying on a road, to create a lamp district; to have roads lighted with gas, or oil, and cause expense, to be levied, one-half on taxable property of the district, one-half on lands on each side of the road lighted in proportion to lineal feet, is valid. Power of apportionment not absolute. Full discussion of subject. s. P., Bowles v. State, 37 Ohio St. 35, as to turnpike. Attorney-General v. Supervisors of Bay Co. 34 Mich. 47. Board of Supervisors raised money for State and county highways under their control. They appropriated $18,000 to the towns of the county, to be used under direction of town officers. Such action not valid; the body that raises money must apply it to public uses, unless there be plain authority given otherwise. (Page 23.)

Bromley v. Reynolds, 2 Utah, 525. An act to compel distribution of money raised by trustees of any school district, by its annual tax upon any railroads running through the district, to all the school districts in their respective counties, in proportion to school population, is invalid. It is levying a local tax for a general purpose. (Page 28.)

Board of Education v. McLandsborough, 36 Ohio St. 227. Public money in custody of an officer charged with its disbursement is stolen or lost without his fault. An act is passed exonerating him from payment, and directing a tax to be levied in the territory upon which the loss must fall to meet the deficit. It is not forbidden by either State or federal constitution. (Page 28, note 3, contra.) Shelly v. Detroit, 45 Mich. 431. Repaving may be assessed on the abutting

owners. (Page 29, note 2, contra.)

Lands in City Limits used for Farming Purposes.-Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. 8. 78. In discretion of legislature such lands may be made liable to city taxes, without violating either 5th or 14th Amendment, Constitution U. S.

8. P., Conklin v. Cambridge, 58 Ind. 130; Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 64. Elaborate discussion, reversing Bradshaw v. Omaha, 1 Neb. 16, contra. 31, 32.)

(Pages

School District not Aid Railway.-Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256. Art. 9, § 5, Constitution of Illinois, as construed by the State courts, is a limitation on the powers of legislature to delegate the taxing power. A congressional township is a corporation merely for school purposes, and cannot be vested with power to aid a railway by issuing bonds and levying for their payment. s. P., People v. Dupuy, 71 Ill. 651. (Page 36, note 2.)

CHAPTER IV.

LIMITATIONS ON TAXING POWER ARISING OUT OF THE SITUS OF THE

PROPERTY TAXED.

Situs of Property Taxed.-Arrapahoe Co. Comrs. v. Cutter, 3 Col. 349. A note due from a person in Colorado, to a non-resident, though secured on real estate in Colorado, is not taxable in Colorado. The debt follows the person.

8. P., Herron v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472; Foreman v. Byrns, 68 Ind. 247; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; affi'g s. c. 42 Conn.

Contra. Fisher v. Rush Co. 19 Kars. 414. A note owned by a resident of Kansas, secured by mortgage on land in Iowa and left there for collection, not taxable in Kansas; its laws do not reach or protect it. (Page 42.)

Stocks of Corporations.-Worth v. Ashe County Comrs. 82 N. C. 420. Shares of stock in foreign corporations are personal property, taxable to the owner at his residence.

8. P., Howell v. Village of Cassapolis, 35 Mich. 471; Griffith v. Watson, 19 Kans. 23; Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28. In the cases from Michigan and Kansas, the stock was not foreign, in the latter it was, and was also taxed at the situs of the foreign corporation. (Pages 46, 47.)

Collateral Inheritance Tax.-Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Penn. St. 179. Testator dying in New Jersey, his domicil, owned bonds of United States, deposited in Pennsylvania for safe-keeping. There are no creditors in Pennsylvania; no legatees, or collateral heirs; the fund is not liable to the collateral inheritance tax in Pennsylvania; it has no situs other than the domicil of the owner. See Shakespeare v. Fidelity Co. 97 Penn. St. 173. (Page 50, notes 2 and 3.)

Negotiable Securities.-Appeal Tax Courts v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354; Same v. Gill, lb. 377. The public debt of a State, owned by a resident of another State, is liable to taxation in the latter, whether exempted in the former or not. The same principle applies to funds or certificates of debt of foreign corporations. Affi'd in Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U. S. 592; State v. Howard County Court, 69 Mo. 454. The owner of county bonds sent them in good faith to New York for safe keeping; they are not taxable at his domicil in Missouri. The opinion also relies on the form of oath of a taxpayer, that "securities not sent out of State to avoid taxation." (Page 51.)

Steamers and Sailing Vessels.-Wheeling and Parkersburg Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273. Steamboats owned by a corporation, plying on the waters of a navigable river, are taxable by the city where the principal office of the corporation is, which is also the home port of the boat. The enrollment and coasting license does not affect the question of taxation. 8. P., Gunther v. Mayor, 55 Md. Interest in vessel engaged in foreign commerce, taxable to owner at residence. S. P., Irvin v. New Orleans, St. Louis & Ry. Co. 94 Ill. 105. Transfer boat between termini of railways, Cairo, Ill., and Fillmore, Ky., registered in Cairo, lay there when not in use; principal office of corporation there. Half interest of foreign corporation taxable in Cairo.

Mobile v. Baldwin, 57 Ala. 61. A ferryboat registered in Mobile, plies between that city and the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, transporting freight and passengers, returning each night to the eastern shore, where the owner resides, and from which it commences its daily trips. The owner is not liable to taxation by the city of Mobile for the boat. (Page 523.)

Goods in Hands of Consignee.-Walton v. Westwood, 73 Ill. 125. Statute requires parties to list all property under their control. Grain in a warehouse, in possession of an agent, purchased by him for other parties on commission, and under his control on 1st day of May, is liable to assessment against the agent. It is not in transit.

Williams v. Wayne County Supervisors, 78 N. Y., 561. Similar statute in New York; an act taxing capital of non-residents engaged in business in New York, and another act exempting from taxation money in the hands of agents, owned by foreign capitalists, and sent to the State for investment, and the bonds, mortgages, and other evidences of the investment. There is no conflict between the acts, and the money in hands of the agent or invested, is exempt. (Pages 55, 56.)

Goods in Transitu.-State v. Carrington, 39 N. J. L. 35. A foreign corporation, mining coal in Pennsylvania, sends its coal by rail across New Jersey to tidewater, for shipment to customers in other States. Its office for business is in New York city. For coal lying on its dock in New Jersey, awaiting shipment to other States, or for coal shipped directly from its mines, and delivered in New Jersey to local dealers, on orders transmitted through the New York office, it is not liable to be taxed in New Jersey.

Blount v. Monroe, 60 Ga. 61. Timber awaiting shipment to England at a port in Georgia, and owned by a subject of Great Britain temporarily residing at such port solely to supervise the shipment, not liable to tax by the State. It is an export. S. P., Clarke v. Clarke, 3 Wood's Circ. Ct. 408.

People v. Townsend, 56 Cal. 633. An act requires owner, when assessed for live stock, to state the county to which he expects to remove his stock; assessor sends list to the treasurer of that county, and he makes demand on treasurer of first county for one-half tax assessed. It is invalid; a tax without reference to situs or domicil, and violates constitutional provision as to equality and uniformity. (Pages 56, 57.)

Double Taxation.-State v. Jones, 24 Minn. 251. A debt secured by mortgage, whose value depends alone on the mortgaged premises, is taxable as personal property to the mortgagee, though the land is taxed at its full value to the mortgagor. s. P., Drexler v. Tyrrell, 15 Nev. 114.

State v. Jones, 40 N. J. L. 268; State v. Manning, Ib. 461; State v. Runyon, 41 N. J. L. 98. The statute of 1876, taxing the mortgage debt to the owner in the town where the mortgaged premises are situate; and only allowing deductions when claimed by the owner of the land, is valid. It is uniform, and does not impair the obligation of the contract. The place of assessment of a chattel or chose in action may be changed at will of legislature.

Statute ex

Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377; Same v. Rice, Ib. 302. empts "mortgages upon property in this State, and the mortgage debts respectively secured therein." Strictly construed, does not include bonds secured upon property both without and within the State. Nor does it include shares in a building association, where the funds loaned are secured by mortgage.

Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321. A resident in Rhode Island owns shares in a manufacturing corporation organized and located with its property in Massachusetts. He was taxed for the shares in Massachusetts, and paid the tax. The same year, he was taxed for the same shares in Rhode Island. The latter tax is valid; the Massachusetts tax does not divest the jurisdiction of Rhode Island; it comes within the fair descriptien of personal property, liable to tax. (Pages 58,59.)