Boston Loan Co. v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 27 June 1884 |
| Citation | 137 Mass. 332 |
| Parties | Boston Loan Company v. City of Boston |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract to recover the amount of a tax assessed upon personal property of the plaintiff for the year 1881 and paid under protest. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows:
The plaintiff is a corporation established under the laws of Connecticut, with a capital stock of $ 100,000, divided into shares of $ 100 each. Its place of business is in Boston, but it holds its annual meetings in Connecticut, and has an office there, and an officer on whom service can be made in case of suits against it, so as to comply with the laws of that State.
On the first day of May, 1881, it had in its place of business in Boston, namely, a room on Washington Street, hired and occupied bye it, office furniture, a safe, fixtures, and other things necessary to carry on its business, to the value of at least $ 1000. It had also in its Boston place of business personal property pledged to it of considerable value.
The only business of the corporation is lending money on personal property mortgaged or pledged to it, except that from time to time, pursuant to the terms of such pledge or mortgage, it sells the collateral security, consisting of merchandise watches, diamonds, household furniture, &c., which becomes its property by failure of the owners to redeem the property mortgaged or pledged. It owns no real estate.
No question is made as to the regularity of the proceedings relating to the assessment of the tax in question, if the corporation is liable to pay a tax. Due notice was given of the tax, which was not paid, whereupon a warrant for its collection was issued in due form, and payment demanded, and payment was made under protest, agreeably to the statute.
If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, judgment was to be rendered in its favor for the sum of $ 362.93, and interest from April 20, 1882, the date of payment; otherwise, judgment for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
N. B. Bryant, for the plaintiff.
T. M. Babson, for the defendant.
The only ground upon which it is contended that this tax upon a foreign corporation for personal property belonging to it found in this State can be sustained is, that it comes within the provision of the Gen. Sts. c. 11, § 12 (Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 20), that "all goods, wares, merchandise, and other stock in trade, (except ships or vessels owned by a copartnership,) including stock employed in the business of manufacturing, or of the mechanic arts, in cities or towns within the State, other than where the owners reside, whether such owners reside within or without this State, shall be taxed in those places where the owners hire or occupy manufactories, stores, shops, or wharves, whether such property is within said places or elsewhere on the first day of May of the year when the tax is made."
It has been held that this provision applies to foreign corporations. Blackstone Manuf. Co. v. Blackstone, 13 Gray 488. By that decision, a corporation existing under the laws of another State is treated, as to the application of the statute to it, as a person residing in that State; and its corporate existence is so far recognized here that it will be regarded as a person rather than as a company, copartnership, or other association, under the St. of 1878, c. 275 (Pub. Sts. c. 13, § 47). No distinction is made by the statute between resident and non-resident owners, and the plaintiff stands in the position of a natural person resident of some town in this State other than Boston.
The plaintiff is incorporated under the laws of Connecticut, and has so far complied with the laws of that State as to retain its existence under those laws; but its business is carried on in Boston, in a room hired and occupied by it, and in which it has office furniture, a safe, fixtures, and other things necessary to carry on its business, and personal property, consisting of merchandise, watches, diamonds, household furniture, &c. pledged to it in its business. Its business is lending money on the security of personal property pledged or mortgaged to it, and, as incident to that, selling such property when not redeemed. The questions presented are, whether any of the property is goods, wares, merchandise, or other stock in trade; and whether the place of business of the plaintiff is a "store" or "shop," within the meaning of the statute.
The consideration that, if the property is not liable to be taxed to the plaintiff in Boston under this provision of the statute, it will escape taxation altogether, is not entitled to much weight in construing the statute, because the principal operation of the statute is, and was intended to be, upon the property of residents of this State, to fix the place where it should be taxed; and it should be interpreted with reference to that purpose, rather than to any incidental effect it may have in rendering property taxable which but for it would be exempt from taxation, as belonging, or being pledged, to non-residents. The question or questions may be stated thus: Is a pawnbroker, resident in this State, who carries on his business in a town other than that in which he resides, in a building hired and occupied by him for the purpose, and who has there furniture necessary for his business, and used in it, for which he is taxable, and personal property pledged to him in the course of his business, for which also he is taxable, to be taxed for such furniture, and for such pledged property, in the place of his residence, or in the place where he carries on his business and keeps the property?
The question is not without difficulty. We think it must depend upon the meaning of the words "store" and "shop" as used in the statute. Any personal property belonging to and used in a business carried on in a store or shop is part of the stock in trade. If a storekeeper who sells goods at retail finds it necessary to the success of his business to have expensive furniture, and to fit up elegant reception-rooms in his store, and to keep a score...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Boston
...on, and to which it relates.’ The property leased to these plaintiffs constituted the stock in trade of the lessors. See Boston Loan Co. v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332;Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U.S. 387, 50 S.Ct. 156, 74 L.Ed. 501;Roney v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4 Cir., 67 F.2d 165;Ch......
-
Commonwealth v. Moriarty
...workhouse’ was used. Doubtless the word ‘shop’ may have different meanings when used with different contexts. But in Boston Loan Co. v. City of Boston, 137 Mass. 332, 336, where, however, the word ‘shop’ was used in a different statute from the statute here involved, it was said: “Shop,' in......
-
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Boston
... ... 326 , that stock in trade means ... "the visible and tangible property with which the trade ... or business of the owner is carried on, and to which it ... relates." The property leased to these plaintiffs ... constituted the stock in trade of the lessors. See Boston ... Loan Co. v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332; Renziehausen v ... Lucas, 280 U.S. 387; Roney v. Commissioner of Internal ... Revenue, 67 F.2d 165; Charles J. Off & Co. v. Morehead, ... 235 Ill. 40 ... The leased property ... being a part of the stock in trade of the lessors, it was not ... ...
-
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Bosworth
...the right to tax a shop or store, that to tax the office furniture, fixtures, and pledges of a pawnbroker's establishment (Boston Loan Co. v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332); and a representation that an insured building is to be used for stores has been held not to be breached by the fact that the ......