Johnson v. Debary-baya Merchants' Line

• Decision Date: 03 March 1896
• Citation: 37 Fla. 499,19 So. 640
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON, Collector v. DEBARY-BAYA MERCHANTS' LINE.

19 So. 640

37 Fla. 499

JOHNSON, Collector v. DEBARY-BAYA MERCHANTS' LINE.

Florida Supreme Court

March 3, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Duval county; W. B. Young, Judge.

Bill by the DeBary-Baya Merchants' Line against J. E. Johnson collector. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Liddon J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. The domicile of a vessel duly registered under the acts of congress, regulating the registry of vessels and record of bills of sale and mortgages affecting the same, is the port where the vessel is registered, and which must be the nearest to the place where the owner or owners reside.

2. A vessel duly registered in the port to which she properly belongs is primarily and presumptively taxable at that port only; and where it is conceded on the record that vessels owned by a nonresident corporation duly registered at the home port of such corporation, in full compliance with the acts of congress regulating the registry of vessels, and regularly returned for assessment and taxation at their home port, are employed in commerce in the waters of this state where the most profitable employment for the vessels was offered, and such employment was in pursuance of the usual course of dealing with said vessels to send them wherever the most profitable service could be secured, they are not so permanent in this state as to become incorporated into the personal property here, and subject to taxation in this jurisdiction. Only the state in which the home port is situated has dominion over the vessels, under such circumstances, for the purposes of taxation.

3. Held, on the facts of this case, a court of equity had jurisdiction to enjoin a sale of a vessel seized for taxes claimed to be due, as the threatened injury is shown to be of an irreparable nature, not within the principle decided in Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258, and Odlin v Woodruff, 12 So. 227, 31 Fla. 160.

COUNSEL

[JOHNSON V DEBARY-BAYA MERCHANTS' LINE 19 So 640(1896)]

W. B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bisbee & Rinehart and John E. Hartridge for appellee.

[JOHNSON V DEBARY-BAYA MERCHANTS' LINE 19 So 640(1896)] A bill was filed by appellee to enjoin appellant, collector of revenue of Duval county, from seizing a steamboat for taxes claimed to be due the state and county. The substantial allegations of the bill, set out in paragraphs, are as follows:

(1) Complainant was a corporate body, organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York, and had been such corporate body since 1883, and from that time to the filing of the bill had its headquarters and chief office in the city and state of New York.

(2) Complainant had at different times during its corporate existence been the owner of the following barges and steamboats, viz.: the city of Jacksonville, Anita, Rosa, Welaka, Oscar Wilde, Geo. M. Bird, Fannie Dugan, and Fred. DeBary; and, at the time of filing the bill, was the owner of the city of Jacksonville, Fred. DeBary, Welaka, and Everglade.

(3) The home port of the several boats named was the city of New York, and they were duly registered in the customhouse in the city of New York and state of New York.

(4) That, for a period of time anterior to the filing of the bill, complainant sent to the waters of the St. Johns river said boats, and maintained a line of steamers between Jacksonville and Sanford, in this state, for a part of each year, and for some years for the entire year, carrying freight and passengers, and doing the usual traffic business incident to steamboats plying upon a river.

(5) That the Fred. DeBary had at different periods of time since and inclusive of the year 1883 plied upon waters in the states of Florida, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, wherever a profitable charter could be obtained, it being the practice and custom of complainant to send its said boats at different times to such waters as they could be most profitably engaged upon.

(6) That since the 15th of November, 1889, the steamers Everglade, Welaka, Fred. DeBary, and City of Jacksonville (except the last two, all having during the summer and part of the fall months plied upon the waters of the states of New York and Massachusetts) formed the connection with the steamships of the Clyde Steamship Company, a corporation under the laws of Delaware, plying between the city of New York and Jacksonville, Fla., and taking the freight of said steamers shipped from New York and Charleston to points on the St. Johns river, in Florida, to Sanford, and thereby forming and becoming an integral part of an all-water route between New York and Jacksonville and Sanford, in Florida; that three of the steamships of the Clyde line, of large carriage capacity, arrived each week with freight from New York and Charleston, for points on the St. Johns river, and which complainant's steamers were engaged in distributing to consignees, and there was no other service capable of properly and expeditiously handling said freight except the boats of complainant.

(7) That the steamers City of Jacksonville and Fred. DeBary had been taken to the waters of the states of New York and Massachusetts. There they were then navigated in the passenger and carriage business, in pursuance of the plan adopted and carried out by complainant, and followed under the arrangement by which the boats were then navigated in connection with the Clyde Steamship Company.

(7a) That the steamboats, being owned in New York, had not become so blended with the commerce and business of the state of Florida as to make them taxable in this state, and the status and condition of said boats, obtained by reason of their nonresident ownership and of their registry in the customhouse in the city of New York under the act of congress, had not been affected or changed.

(8) That the steamer Geo. M. Bird was not worth $1,000, and in the year 188--became so worthless that she was dismantled and abandoned as wholly worthless and useless, and had not been used since that date; that the Fannie Dugan was not worth $2,000, and she was burned and totally destroyed in the summer of 1887; that the Anita was burned in the summer of 1889, in Boston, Mass. The Oscar Wilde was of little value, and was sold in 1888 for $700; and the Rosa was sold in the summer of 1889.

(9) That all of said boats, by reason of the wear and tear in the usual course of usage, had depreciated from year to year, and such depreciation is an important factor in the consideration of steamboat property.

(10) That complainant is informed that taxes of every kind on vessels are payable in their home port, and that the home port is the name of the port required by the act of congress to be painted on the stern of the vessel, upon a black ground, in white letters; and, in compliance with the act of congress, the name of each of the said vessels had been painted on its stern, upon a black ground, in white letters, and the name of the city of New York and state of New York given as the home port of said vessels; that, acting upon the law as so fixed, the tax on all of the said vessels, from the year 1883 to and including the year 1890, had [JOHNSON V DEBARY-BAYA MERCHANTS' LINE 19 So. 640(1896)] been paid to the state, county, and city of New York.

(11) That complainant had regularly returned the valuation of its property, including the said vessels, to the proper authorities of the state, county, and city of New York, and had regularly submitted all information required by said authorities for the purpose of enabling the said authorities to assess and collect the taxes against it.

(12) All of said boats were and are of more than 20 tons' burden.

(13) That the tax assessor of Duval county, Fla., in violation of the constitution of the United States and of the act of congress regulating commerce and the assessment of taxes on steamboats, had assessed a tax against all of said boats claimed to be due for the state of Florida and county of Duval.

(14) That said tax was not assessed to or against complainant, but was illegally assessed against the property itself, as follows:

For the year 1883. Steamers of DeBary-Baya Line: City of Jacksonville, Fred. DeBary, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird, Welaka, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1884. Steamers of DeBary-Baya Line: City of Jacksonville, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird, Welaka, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1885. Steamers of DeBary-Baya Line and owners: City of Jacksonville, Fannie Dugan, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird, Welaka, Fred. DeBary, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1886. DeBary-Baya Line and owners: City of Jacksonville, Fannie Dugan, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird. Welaka, Fred. DeBary, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1887. Steamers of DeBary-Baya Line and owners: City of Jacksonville, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird, Welaka, Fred. DeBary, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1888. Steamers of DeBary-Baya Line: City of Jacksonville, Anita, Rosa, Geo. M. Bird, Welaka, barge Oscar Wilde.

For 1889. Steamers DeBary Line: City of Jacksonville, Anita, Rosa, Welaka, Oscar Wilde.

For 1890. Steamer City of Jacksonville and owner.

(15) That, during the periods of time for which said assessments were made, complainant was not the owner of the Oscar Wilde, Geo. M. Bird, Fannie Dugan, Anita, and Rosa; two having been sold, two burned, and one destroyed by natural decadence, and since the year 1887 the Anita and others of said steamboats were not in the waters of the state of Florida, nor in any of its ports at any time during said year.

(16) That said tax assessment was void because said boats were not taxable, under the facts stated, in the state of Florida, but only in the state of New York.

(17) That said assessment was illegal and void, because the property was not assessed to the...