Heinz v. Board of Equalization of City of Davenport

• Decision Date: 21 October 1903
• Citation: 96 N.W. 967,121 Iowa 445
• Parties: HEINZ AND FISHER, Appellants, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

96 N.W. 967

121 Iowa 445

HEINZ AND FISHER, Appellants, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 21, 1903

Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. JAMES W. BOLLINGER, Judge.

APPEAL from a judgment of the district court confirming the assessment for taxation of certain moneys and credits in the hands of the plaintiffs.

Affirmed.

Heinz & Fisher for appellants.

Henry Thuenen, Jr., for appellee.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

This case is, to a large extent, governed by the decision in German Trust Co. v. Board of Equalization, 121 Iowa 325. As in that case, plaintiffs carry on a business of making loans of money in their own names, and assigning the securities thus obtained to their customers reserving to themselves a fraction of the interest earnings as their own measure of compensation or profit. Certain securities thus taken by them were assigned, with the reservation mentioned, to one Helen G. Renwick, who at the date of this assignment was a resident of California. Said securities were left in the possession of plaintiffs under some agreement, the details of which are not entirely clear. Plaintiffs testified that they held them as a matter of "accommodation" to Mrs. Renwick. It appears however, that the loans are made payable at the office of plaintiffs, who say they reserved the one-half of one per cent. interest on the principal sum "for their trouble." They collected principal and interest as the same became due, retaining for themselves their share of the earnings. The principal was sometimes sent to her, and sometimes reloaned, as she might elect. The insurance upon property covered by the mortgages was looked after and kept in force, and accruing tax liens, if any, were removed, by plaintiffs. In short, except in the absence of power to sell or cancel the securities, plaintiffs evidently were empowered and expected to do all the owner could herself have done in the keeping possession and control of the same, and the possession so held and the control so exercised were for the mutual profit and advantage of both parties to these transactions. It must also be remembered that, by reserving a part interest in the securities, appellants were co-owners with Mrs. Renwick, and as such, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, had the legal right to their possession and control--a right which they appear to have exercised without interference or restraint on her part. Such being the case, we are constrained to hold, as in German Trust Co. v. Board, supra, that these moneys and credits are taxable under the provisions of Code, section 1320, and that the assessment to plaintiffs, as the resident agents in possession of the property of a non-resident principal, was right.

II. Appellants, in argument, contend that the statute is not to be construed as intending to make taxable any property whose legal situs is not in this state. If that proposition be conceded, we have still to inquire, where is the legal...