Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Keown

• Decision Date: 13 April 1906
• Citation: Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Keown, 122 Ky. 580, 93 S.W. 588 (Ky. Ct. App. 1906)
• Parties: AYER & LORD TIE CO. v. KEOWN, Sheriff.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

93 S.W. 588

122 Ky. 580

AYER & LORD TIE CO. v. KEOWN, Sheriff.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 13, 1906

On Rehearing, May 11, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ohio County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Ayer & Lord Tie Company against C. P. Keown, sheriff. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. C Grassham and W. R. Gardner, for appellant.

Barnes & Anderson and Glenn & Ringo, for appellee.

CARROLL C.

The appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, and its principal place of business is situated in Chicago, Ill. It is engaged in the business of buying, transporting, and selling railroad ties in different parts of the country. In 1903 the board of supervisors of Ohio county, Ky. assessed omitted personal property against appellant amounting to $12,500, and to enjoin the appellee the sheriff of Ohio county, from collecting the tax due on said assessment, this action was brought. It is alleged in the petition as amended that appellant listed and paid taxes on all of the personal property owned by it, including the personal property situated in Ohio county, Ky. in Chicago Cook county, Ill.; that all of the ties listed by the board of supervisors, and upon which a tax is sought to be collected, "had been completely manufactured into railroad ties in the woods; that nothing remains to be done to them in order to place them in condition for use as railroad ties, as originally designed by plaintiff when they purchased them; that said ties had been taken from the woods and placed in the hands of a common carrier for the purpose of immediately shipping them out of the county, and were on September 15, 1903, on their way to foreign ports; that as many of them as were on said date within the limits of Ohio county were checked only temporarily on their journey from the woods to foreign states, for the purpose of being loaded on barges, on which they were to be, and on which they have long since, been, carried to their place of destination outside of Ohio county, Ky. towards which points they had already started and were moving at the time of the taxation as above referred to; that as a matter of fact all of said ties at said date had been contracted to foreign companies, persons, and corporations and were in process of delivery." It also averred that it had a branch office and principal place of business at Paducah, in McCracken county, Ky. which is its head office and principal place of business and residence in Kentucky, and at which place it is required by the laws of Kentucky to, and does, list and pay taxes on all of its personal property taxable in the state. To this pleading a demurrer was sustained, and, the appellant declining to plead further, its petition was dismissed, and it is here on appeal.

In Johnson v. Bradley-Watkins Tie Co., 85 S.W. 726, 27 Ky Law Rep. 540, and Ayers & Lord Tie Co. v. Keown, Sheriff, 89 S.W. 116, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 201, it was expressly decided by this court that personal property, situated in this state and owned by a nonresident of the state, is subject to taxation within this state. As appellant has a chief office and place of business in the state at Paducah, in McCracken county, proceeding upon the theory that personal property follows the residence of the owner, it is contended that all its personal property is taxable there, and therefore the taxing authorities of Ohio county, in attempting to list and tax its personal property in that county, were acting out of their powers and jurisdiction. When the owner resides in this state, whether a corporation or an individual, the general rule and the one followed is that his personal property is taxable at the place where he resides. Gates v. Barrett, 79 Ky. 295; Wren v. Boske, 72 S.W. 279, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1780; Langdon-Creasey Co. v. Trustees, 70 S.W. 381, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 823; Com. v. Union Refrigerator Co., 80 S.W. 490, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 24. But this rule has no application to the question here raised, which is that the personal property in this state of a foreign corporation must be assessed for taxation at the place in this state where its chief office and place of business is situated. This position is entirely untenable, and is not sustained by any authority that we have discovered. If the principle that all personal property followed the owner, and could not be taxed except where he resided, was applied to nonresidents, then their personal property in this state would escape taxation entirely. This rule cannot be, and has never been, extended to persons who reside beyond this state. The only fair and safe method of assessing and taxing the personal property of nonresidents is to assess and tax it in the county where it is located. The fact that a foreign corporation may have a place of business and a chief office in this state does not make it a resident of this state, or the place where its chief office is its residence in the state, in the sense that all the personal property of the corporation in this state is to be deemed to be located there for the purporses of taxation. The law requires foreign corporations to have and keep an office and place of business in...