Boston Inv. Co. v. City of Boston

• Decision Date: 07 March 1893
• Citation: 33 N.E. 580,158 Mass. 461
• Parties: BOSTON INVESTMENT CO. v. CITY OF BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS REAL-ESTATE CO. v. SAME. NORTHERN INVESTMENT CO. v. SAME.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

158 Mass. 461

33 N.E. 580

BOSTON INVESTMENT CO. v. CITY OF BOSTON.

MASSACHUSETTS REAL-ESTATE CO. v. SAME.

NORTHERN INVESTMENT CO. v. SAME.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 7, 1893

COUNSEL

Arthur M. Alger, for plaintiffs.

Andrew J. Bailey, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

These three cases all present the same questions. Each of the plaintiffs is a corporation organized under the laws of another state, having an office and doing a large part of its business in Boston, in this commonwealth. Each of them has paid to the defendant, under protest, a tax assessed on money deposited by it with a national bank in Boston, and the question is whether the defendant could legally assess such a tax. The defendant, in its argument, relies solely on Pub.St c. 11, § 20, which provides that "all personal estate within or without the commonwealth shall be assessed to the owner in the city or town where he is an inhabitant on the first day of May, except," etc., and it is contended that the word "owner," like the word "person," may be applied to a corporation, and that a foreign corporation is an inhabitant in any city or town in this state where it has its principal place of business. On the other hand, it may be said that this clause of the statute has never been held to apply to corporations, but has repeatedly been decided to be inapplicable even to corporations organized under the laws of this commonwealth. Previously to the enactment of the laws for taxing franchises of corporations, it was held that the personal property belonging to a corporation, except machinery, was not taxable to the corporation under this section, but was included in the value of the shares which were taxed to the stockholders. Factory Co. v Danvers, 10 Mass. 514; Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Worcester, 7 Cush. 600; Boston & S.G. Co. v. Boston, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 181; Manufacturing Co. v. Pawtucket, 7 Gray, 277. Of a domestic corporation which does business in different cities and towns it would be impossible to say that it is an inhabitant of one municipality more than of another. There are additional reasons why this section cannot apply to foreign corporations. The language above quoted implies that the owner has a domicile in some city or town of this state, which draws after it for purposes of taxation and the laws of descent all his personal property, wherever situated, and that he is not a person who has a domicile, or who owes allegiance elsewhere. The word "inhabitant" in this statute means one whose domicile is in the place referred to. Borland v. Boston, 132 Mass. 89. The domicile of a corporation is in the state of its origin, and it retains that domicile irrespective of the residence of its officers or the place where its business is transacted. This has been decided in many cases. Under the judiciary act of the United States, which establishes the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, it has always been held that a corporation is a citizen of the state under which it holds its charter, without regard to the residence of its officers or members, or to the place where its business is carried on. Blackstone Manuf'g Co. v. Inhabitants of Blackstone, 13 Gray, 488; Danforth v. Penny, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 564; Railroad Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Railroad Co., 16 How. 314; Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404-408; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5-12; Goodlett v. Railroad, 122 U.S. 391, 7 S.Ct. 1254; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369. In Insurance Co. v. Francis, 11 Wall. 210, it is stated that a "corporation of one state, by engaging in business or acquiring property in another state, does not thereby cease to...