Harness v. Williams

• Citation: 1 So. 759,64 Miss. 600
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 11 April 1887
• Parties: MICHAEL HARNESS v. J. H. WILLIAMS, TRUSTEE

1 So. 759

64 Miss. 600

MICHAEL HARNESS v. J. H. WILLIAMS, TRUSTEE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 11, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hinds County, HON. T. J. WHARTON Judge.

In 1883 and 1884 the firm of Williams & Williams were carrying on a general merchandise business. On January 1, 1885, this firm was changed to Williams & Black, the latter having purchased an interest in the old firm.

On March 22, 1884, Michael Harness opened an account with Williams & Williams, and continued the same until Williams &amp Black began business, when this account was transferred to the latter firm. Harness continued to trade with Williams &amp Black until January 6, 1887. At various times settlements were had, and the indebtedness found to be due from Harness to Williams & Williams and Williams & Black was then evidenced by promissory notes secured by deeds of trust, the last of which are of date March 5 and February 11, 1886 respectively. J. H. Williams, the trustee in these several deeds of trust, brought this action of replevin to recover possession of the property included in them, the conditions thereof being broken.

The defendant, Harness, interposed the plea that the plaintiffs had not complied with the provisions of § 585, Code of 1880, and could not maintain their action on that account. The evidence tended to show that Williams & Williams paid a privilege tax for two full years, 1883 and 1884, under the "Amnesty" Act of March 12, 1886, and Williams &amp Black, a firm composed of Williams & Williams and Black, paid for the time they had been in business, but did not pay for three full years; that the aggregate amount paid was sufficient to cover one continuous business if cotton which such merchants had on hand and had taken from their customers in payment of debts was not to be counted in estimating the value of stock on hand, and insufficient if so counted. The jury found for the plaintiff in replevin and from the judgment against him the defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

E. E. Baldwin, for the appellant.

The proof showed that in paying amnesty tax Williams & Williams paid in their name on two years, 1883 and 1884, and Williams & Black on one year, 1885. It was objected that this was an insufficient payment, and that under the law each firm should have paid three years' taxes, it being in the nature of a penalty and not in recompense of any unpaid taxes.

The court below ruled that it was proper for the two firms to pay three years' amnesty tax between them, two years in the name of one and one year in the name of the other; that the amnesty tax was not a penalty, but only restitution; that cotton kept for sale by a merchant was no part of his stock, and was not to be counted in estimating the value of his stock.

If a merchant has in the spring a ten thousand dollar stock of goods in his store for sale to the farmers, and in the fall has only three thousand dollars' worth of the same to sell them, but has seven thousand dollars' worth of cotton in his warehouse for sale to the cotton buyers, has he not at each of these times a ten thousand dollar stock?

E. E. Baldwin also made an oral argument.

Wells & Williamson, for the appellee.

1. When the Amnesty Act was passed in 1886, though these two firms on an estimate believed that they had paid sufficient tax on each of those years, yet out of an abundance of caution and under the advice of their counsel they proceeded to pay the amount demanded by the Amnesty Act.

No objection is made as to the amount, but it is...