Dixon Cnty. v. Halstead

Decision Date28 March 1888
Citation37 N.W. 621,23 Neb. 697
PartiesDIXON COUNTY v. HALSTEAD.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

United States bonds are not taxable under the laws of this state. Certain United States bonds were purchased on the 3d day of March, 1886, by a private banker, who on the 17th of May of that year claimed the same as exempt from taxation. The board of equalization having imposed taxes on the bonds, held, that the evidence before such board failed to show that the bonds were purchased as a means of evading taxation.

Where a private banker, about a month before the time fixed by law for the assessment of property, converted his assets into United States bonds, held, that if the change in the character of the funds was merely temporary, the object being to escape taxation, that such assets would be liable to be taxed, and that the question of the bona fides of the transaction was one of fact for the jury to determine. Jones v. Commissioners, 5 Neb. 561.

A private banker, in returning a list of his property to the assessor, claimed as exempt from taxation certain United States bonds, giving their numbers and denomination, to which the assessor made no objection at the time, but after the first day of June of that year added the value of said bonds to the assessment list of said bank, and called the attention of the board of equalization to the fact. Notice was thereupon served on the bank, which appeared and contested the right to increase said assessment. Evidence was taken for and against said claim, and the increase in the assessment ordered by said board, which order was reversed by the district court. Held, that the charge made by the assessor was in the nature of a complaint, and made by a competent party, and that evidence was properly received in support of the complaint; but that the evidence did not warrant the order of the board of equalization.

Where an assessment has been duly made and returned, the property owner may rest securely upon such assessment, unless a complaint is filed against him before the board of equalization, and evidence in support of the complaint tending to show that his assessment should be increased.

Error to district court, Dixon county; CRAWFORD, Judge.

The board of equalization of the village of Ponca having imposed taxes upon certain United States bonds purchased by E. E. Halstead, a private banker, and claimed exempt from taxation, a proceeding was instituted to show cause why such assessment should not be made, and resulted in the finding that the defendant had purchased the bonds to evade taxation, and that the increase in assessment was therefore legal. This ruling having been affirmed by the board of supervisors of Dixon county, the case was taken on error to the district court, where the order was reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of Halstead. The county brings error.W. F. Norris and J. J. McAllister, for plaintiff in error.

W. E. Gantt, for defendant in error.

MAXWELL, J.

In May, 1886, the defendant returned to the assessor of Ponca, Dixon county, (5)--the amount of bonds and stocks of every kind, state and county warrants, and other municipal securities and shares of capital stock of joint-stock or other companies or corporations, held as an investment, in any way representing assets, the sum of $16,336.16; and also returned the amount of bonds and other securities exempt by law from taxation, specifying the amount and kind of each, the same being included in the preceding fifth item as follows:

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦“Nos. 66,759 )¦               ¦             ¦12,050 @ 126--$15,183.¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦39,976 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦61,797 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦               ¦Nos. 66,168 )¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦5,748 )       ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦               ¦37,969 )     ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦38,902 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦               ¦120,770 )    ¦$1,000 each.          ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦49,974 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦               ¦81,047 )     ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦62,502 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦$500 each.     ¦220,151 )    ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦49,494 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦18,071 )      ¦               ¦             ¦                      ¦
                +--------------+---------------+-------------+----------------------¦
                ¦              ¦U. S. 4% Bonds.¦             ¦                      ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sisler v. Foster
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1905
    ...769; Holly Springs Co. v. Supervisor, 52 Miss. 281; State v. Assessor, 37 La. Ann., 850; Jones v. Seward County, 10 Neb. 154; Dixon County v. Halstead, 23 Neb. 697; v. Commissioners, 9 Kan. 344; Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf., 175; Shotwell v. Moore, 6 O. F. D., 500; 129 U.S. 590; Crowder v. Ri......
  • Markham v. Carver
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1924
    ... ... Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127; Horton v ... State, 60 Neb. 701; Dixon County v. Halstead, 23 Neb ...          The ... Supreme Court of the United States, ... ...
  • Rosenbery v. Douglas County
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1932
    ... ... Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo County, 7 Neb. 253; Dixon ... County v. Halstead, 23 Neb. 697, 37 N.W. 621; Spiech ... v. Tierney, 56 Neb. 514; Grant v ... ...
  • Dixon County v. Halstead
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1888

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT