Jack v. Walker
| Decision Date | 08 June 1899 |
| Parties | JACK v. WALKER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Paxton Warrington & Boutet and Wm. F. Eltzroth, for complainant.
Wm McDonald and George Burr, for defendants.
On the 28th day of February, 1895, the appellee, John V. Jack, filed his bill in chancery in the United States circuit court within and for the Southern district of Ohio against the appellants, Isaac N. Walker, auditor, and Charles H. Eulass treasurer, of Warren county, Ohio. In his bill, Jack averred that the matter and amount in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $2,000; that he is and has been a resident of the state of New York for more than eight years last past; and that the defendants, Isaac N Walker and Charles H. Eulass, are residents and citizens of the state of Ohip; that he is the owner of certain moneys and credits evidenced by promissory notes secured by mortgages upon real estate in Warren county, Ohio; that Isaac N. Walker is auditor, and Charles H. Eulass is treasurer, of said county; that the auditor is about to place on the tax duplicate of said county and assess against Jack the taxes about to be levied on his moneys and credits to the amount of $297,794. He further averred that the auditor is about to assess illegally against Jack taxes on the above-described moneys and credits, and to certify the same to the treasurer for collection, and that the treasurer is about to collect the same, without authority of law. A restraining order was prayed for and allowed. Defendants filed a general demurrer to the bill, which was overruled, and they thereupon filed their answer to the bill. In their answer, defendants admitted the averments regarding the citizenship of defendants, the nonresidence of Jack, and official capacity of defendants, as set forth in the bill; that Jack owned the moneys and credits described in the bill, and that the same were evidenced by notes secured by mortgages on real estate in Warren county, Ohio; that defendants were about to list for taxation the moneys and credits above described, and that they were about to levy and collect such taxes as should be assessed against the same. Defendants denied that the taxes so about to be assessed, levied, and collected by them were illegal, and they further denied all manner of unlawful acts and proceedings charged in said bill. They further averred in their answer that said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Langer v. Packard
...Tax List, 24 P. 182; Holland v. Board of Commissioners, 39 P. 575; Adams v. Colonial & United States Mortg. Co., 34 So. 482; Jack v. Walker, 96 F. 578, affirmed 100 1006; Hathaway v. Edwards, 85 N.E. 28; Com. v. Peebles, 119 S.W. 774; National F. Ins. Co. v. Assessors, 46 So. 117; General E......
-
Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk, & Co. v. Wallace
...is not subject to taxation in this territory." Holland v. Board of Comrs. 39 P. 575; Adams v. Colonial U. S. Mortg. Co. 34 So. 482; Jack v. Walker, 96 F. 578, affirmed in 100 1006; Hathaway v. Edwards, 85 N.E. 28; Commonwealth v. Peebles, 119 S.W. 774; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Assessors, 4......
-
State ex rel. American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Gehner
...only being remitted to the principal. It was held that the securities were not taxable at the residence of the owner in Kansas. In Jack v. Walker, 96 F. 578, it was that debts owned by non-residents of the State of Ohio, evidenced by notes and mortgages on real estate within the state, were......
-
McKnight v. Dudley
...in the fourth defense of the answer, the taxes claimed may have been listed under the provisions of these sections. The Jack Cases (Jack v. Walker, 96 F. 578; Walker Jack, 40 C.C.A. 689, 100 F. 1006) are not in point. In those cases the court held that the property assessed did not come wit......