In re Truscon Steel Co., No. 138.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtFELLOWS
Citation224 N.W. 653,246 Mich. 174
Docket NumberNo. 138.
Decision Date29 March 1929
PartiesIn re TRUSCON STEEL CO.

246 Mich. 174
224 N.W. 653

In re TRUSCON STEEL CO.

No. 138.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 29, 1929.


Certiorari to Corporation Tax Appeal Board.

Certiorari by the Truscon Steel Company to review an order of the corporation tax appeal board, affirming computation of secretary of state as to amount of privilege fee to be paid by petitioner. Action of secretary of state and appeal board affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

[224 N.W. 653]

Butzel, Levin & Winston, of Detroit (A. J. Levin and I. Z. Acoff, both of Detroit, and O. P. Lambert, of Youngstown, Ohio, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and Harry A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Alice Alexander, of Lansing, of counsel), for defendant.


FELLOWS, J.

The Truscon Steel Company is a Michigan corporation maintaining an office at Detroit, where a small amount of business is conducted. Its main plant and executive offices are maintained at Youngstown, Ohio. The controversy here involves the use of three items of intangible personal property in the computation of the specific tax required by Act 85, Public Acts 1921, as amended. These items are as follows: (1) Due from banks located outside the State for money on deposit, $404,353.33; (2) notes and accounts receivable, $4,903,298.75; and (3) deferred charges amounting to $77,113.06. These sums are attributable to the business outside the state, having been acquired by and used in such business. We again have before us the question of whether the maxim, ‘mobilia sequuntur personam’-movables follow the person-shall be followed in the computation of this excise, or whether we should adopt for convenience the theory of business situs. The same question has been before us on four occasions: White Bros. Lumber Co. v. Corporation Tax Appeal Board, 222 Mich. 274, 192 N. W. 570;Saginaw Manufacturing Co. v. Secretary of State, 226 Mich. 1, 196 N. W. 616;In re Pantlind Hotel Co., 232 Mich. 330, 205 N. W. 99, 49 A. L. R. 1291;In re Dodge Bros., 241 Mich. 665, 217 N. W. 777. In each of these cases we have recognized the common-law rule that the situs of intangible property is the domicile of its owner, and, in the Dodge Brothers Case, we pointed out that it was within the province of the Legislature to change this rule, but that, until changed by the Legislature, we could not adopt a ‘business situs' instead of the situs of the owner for the purposes of the act. Two of these cases involved domestic corporations, two foreign corporations. We applied the rule alike to both classes. It resulted in the use of the intangibles in making the assessment upon the two domestic corporations and their elimination in the cases of foreign corporations. Unless we overrule these cases, which we are not inclined to do, the computation made by the secretary of state must be upheld.

But counsel for the company insists that, if the act is to be so construed, it offends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Duluth, S.S. & A.R. Co. v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Commission, No. 45
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 10 Septiembre 1958
    ...clearly pointed out in Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353, and later in Re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653, and in Re G. H. Hammond Co., 246 Mich. 179, 224 N.W. 655. The question[353 Mich. 659] presented is so clearly disposed of in ......
  • Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Commission, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 1 Junio 1957
    ...clearly pointed out in Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353; and later in Re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653, and in Re G. H. Hammond Co., 246 Mich. 179, 224 N.W. 655. The question presented is so clearly disposed of in Re Detroit & Wi......
  • Dooley v. City of Detroit, Nos. 53
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 9 Mayo 1963
    ...2 beginning with Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353, and including In re Truscan Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653; In re Detroit Properties Corp., 254 Mich. 523, 236 N.W. 850; Udylite Corp., v. Michigan Corporation & Securities [370 Mich. 206......
  • In re Detroit Props. Corp., No. 9
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 1 Junio 1931
    ...Co. v. State, 216 Mich. 261, 272, 185 N. W. 353;In re Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co., 232 Mich. 574, 205 N. W. 102;In re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N. W. 653;Cobbs & Mitchell v. Corporation Tax Appeal Board, 252 Mich. 478, 481, 233 N. W. 386. Actual transaction of business by a dome......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Duluth, S.S. & A.R. Co. v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Commission, No. 45
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 10 Septiembre 1958
    ...clearly pointed out in Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353, and later in Re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653, and in Re G. H. Hammond Co., 246 Mich. 179, 224 N.W. 655. The question[353 Mich. 659] presented is so clearly disposed of in ......
  • Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Michigan Corp. and Securities Commission, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 1 Junio 1957
    ...clearly pointed out in Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353; and later in Re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653, and in Re G. H. Hammond Co., 246 Mich. 179, 224 N.W. 655. The question presented is so clearly disposed of in Re Detroit & Wi......
  • Dooley v. City of Detroit, Nos. 53
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 9 Mayo 1963
    ...2 beginning with Union Steam Pump Sales Co. v. Secretary of State, 216 Mich. 261, 185 N.W. 353, and including In re Truscan Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N.W. 653; In re Detroit Properties Corp., 254 Mich. 523, 236 N.W. 850; Udylite Corp., v. Michigan Corporation & Securities [370 Mich. 206......
  • In re Detroit Props. Corp., No. 9
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 1 Junio 1931
    ...Co. v. State, 216 Mich. 261, 272, 185 N. W. 353;In re Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co., 232 Mich. 574, 205 N. W. 102;In re Truscon Steel Co., 246 Mich. 174, 224 N. W. 653;Cobbs & Mitchell v. Corporation Tax Appeal Board, 252 Mich. 478, 481, 233 N. W. 386. Actual transaction of business by a dome......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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