Bluefields Banana Company v. Board of Assessors

• Decision Date: 04 January 1897
• Docket Number: 12,140
• Citation: 49 La.Ann. 43,21 So. 627
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BLUEFIELDS BANANA COMPANY v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

21 So. 627

49 La.Ann. 43

BLUEFIELDS BANANA COMPANY v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

No. 12,140

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 4, 1897

Argued December 17, 1896

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J..

Plaintiff alleges itself to be a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and domiciled therein in the city of Galveston.

It represents that in the month of January or February, 1984, or thereabouts, and also in January or February, 1895, or thereabouts, the Board of Assessors for the Parish of Orleans assessed it for the sum of five thousand dollars as cash in bank.

That it is a foreign corporation; that it has no property of any description subject to be assessed or taxed in the State of Louisiana; that it was never subject, in person or property to the jurisdiction of the Board of Assessors, or bound in any manner to observe or note its illegal action in their regard; that said pretended assessment is illegal, null and void; that the State Tax Collector for the second district of of the city of New Orleans and the city of New Orleans are endeavoring, on the claim that said assessment is legal, to collect the taxes based thereon and threaten to levy upon debts and credits belonging to it; that it is entitled to have said assessment canceled and annulled and to have the State Tax Collector and the city of New Orleans restrained from collecting the taxes based thereon.

It prayed for and obtained a writ of injunction.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Ivy G Kittredge, for plaintiff, Appellee.

F. C Zacharie, for Tax Assessor and Tax Collector, Defendants Appellants.

OPINION

NICHOLLS, C.J.

The State tax sought to be levied is seventy-six dollars on movable or personal property. It is assessed and levied under Act 106 of 1890. The portions of the sections embracing the tax are as follows: Sec. 1 "* * * all movable property and chattels, all personal property, all goods, wares and merchandise, and other stocks in trade in possession, on hand and under control; * * * all property held, controlled or administered in each separate capacity, as president, cashier, treasurer, liquidator, assignee, master, superintendent, manager, sequestrator, receiver, trustee, stakeholder, depositary, warehouseman, keeper, curator, tutor, executor, administrator, legatee, heir, beneficiary, father, agent, attorney, usufructuary, mandatory, fiduciary or official capacity." * * * (The italics are our own.)

"This enumeration shall not be construed so as to exempt from taxation any property or values not enumerated herein." Sec. 7. "It is made the duty of the tax assessors throughout the State to place upon the list all property subject to taxation, including merchandise or stock in trade on hand at the date of listing within their respective districts or parishes; * * * provided further, that in assessing mercantile firms, the true intent and purpose of this act shall be held to mean, the placing of such value upon the stock in trade, all cash, whether borrowed or not, money at interest, open accounts, credits, etc., as will represent in their aggregate a fair average on the capital, both cash and credit, employed in the business of the party or parties to be assessed. All this shall apply with equal force to any person or persons representing business interests that may claim a domicile elsewhere, the intent and purpose being that no non-resident, either by himself, or through any agent, shall transact business here without paying to the State a corresponding tax with that exacted of its own citizens; and all bills receivable, obligations or credits arising from the business done in this State are hereby declared assessable within this State, and at the business domicile of said non-resident, his agent or representative." (The italics are our own.)

The plaintiff is a Texas corporation. Louis Ivy testified: A part of its business is conducted in the city of New Orleans through the firm of John Wilson & Co. The company exported fruit from Spanish America to the United States for sale. The fruit was brought to New Orleans and there sold by the agents of the company, and the money was placed there to their credit in the Mutual National Bank and the Hibernia National Bank. The only funds which the company had at the time of the assessments were the deposits. When debts and obligations of the company in New Orleans fell due they were paid by checks on these two banks drawn by the witness (Ivy), its book-keeper, who held a power of attorney so to do. He was the financial agent of the firm. He received checks, greenbacks and silver in the ordinary current business for the proceeds of the sale of the importations, and it was his rule to deposit them in the banks to the credit of the company as soon as he could. He at times received money for the company from Wilson & Co., who sold their stock for them. He received checks, except for the small local trade, which probably amounted to three hundred dollars a month. He generally put out moneys through checks, sometimes paid from money he had in hand before the bank closed. He rarely had on hand outside of the bank more than twenty-five dollars in silver. If he did it was because he received it after the bank was closed and it was too late to deposit it, and he could not do so until the next day. The largest amount was cash two hundred and seventy dollars, held for a day or two in the desk in the office until he could deposit it. He kept on hand, outside of the banks, an average of about twenty-five dollars a day to pay for telegrams, incidentals and all small amounts too small to draw a check for. If there was any surplus money in New Orleans it was at the command of the Galveston company.

The company chartered vessels in New York on voyages between New York and Galveston. The company instructed him to pay the charter money in New Orleans, the amount of the same being about "two thousand dollars a month." Plaintiff relies upon the proposition that moneys belonging to a foreign corporation, deposited to its credit in the banks of New Orleans, are mere credits -- that they are personal property having no situs other than that of their owner, and are, therefore, not taxable in Louisiana. That it is a matter of no moment whether the corporation does business in New Orleans, and the deposits...