McKnight v. Dudley
| Decision Date | 08 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 1,552. |
| Parties | McKNIGHT et al. v. DUDLEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
R. B Miller, for appellants.
Jones & James (Rankin D. Jones, Francis B. James, and Spencer M Jones, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
On the 21st of October, 1899, the auditor of Lawrence county, Ohio acting under authority of sections 2781 and 2782 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio of 1906, placed upon the tax duplicate of Lawrence county, against Mary A. Dudley, certain credits (being notes and mortgages alleged to be outstanding) for the years 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, with the statutory penalties added, upon which he assessed taxes aggregating $5,471.50, and certified the same to the treasurer for collection. This was done upon the ground that Mrs. Dudley was a resident of Ironton, Lawrence county, during the years mentioned, and had evaded returning the alleged credits. On the same day, the treasurer brought suit against Mrs. Dudley in the state court to collect these back taxes, and secured an attachment against her property in Lawrence county by making affidavit that she was at that time a nonresident. This suit was removed to the court below by Mrs. Dudley on the ground she was not a citizen of Ohio, and thereafter the present action was instituted to enjoin the treasurer and auditor from further prosecuting the suit brought by the former, and from maintaining said claim for taxes on the tax duplicate, or attempting to collect the same. The court below, after a full hearing, granted the relief prayed for, from which action an appeal has been taken.
Several grounds of relief are set out in the bill of complaint; the principal being: First, that Mrs. Dudley was a nonresident of Ironton during the years 1894 to 1899, inclusive; second, that the auditor acted without any evidence in charging her with taxes for these years, and that, in point of fact, during this time her debts equaled or exceeded her actual credits; and, third, that sections 2781 and 2782 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio of 1906 were unconstitutional.
The court below found it necessary to consider the first ground alone; the finding being: 'The weight of the evidence shows that she was not a resident of Ironton during the years in which it is sought to tax her credits. ' We have heard the arguments and examined the record, which is voluminous, and we concur in the conclusion reached by the court below.
Mrs Dudley was born in England, twice married there, and came to Ironton in 1870 to join her second husband, John Dudley. Mr. and Mrs. Dudley kept house in Ironton form 1870 to 1880, when he became insane and was sent to the asylum at Athens, Ohio, where he died in 1896. Mrs. Dudley continued to keep house in Ironton until 1886, when she removed to Philadelphia, where her son William was attending a medical college. When she broke up housekeeping in Ironton, she disposed of her household goods, except enough to furnish two rooms in Philadelphia, which she took with her. She, her daughter Frances, and her son William lived in Philadelphia, or its suburbs, from 1886 to 1892. By this time her son had completed his medical course, and her daughter Frances had married and removed to Indianapolis. Another daughter, Maud, after a preparatory course of two years, had entered the dramatic profession and established herself in New York. It is Mrs. Dudley's claim, and there was some testimony to support it, that when she left Philadelphia she joined her daughter Maud in New York, and has since made her home there. In 1897 Maud was married and left the stage. She has since spent practically all her time in New York. Before, she was 'on the road'; her engagements taking her from New York a large part of each year. The testimony as to Mrs. Dudley's movements after she left Philadelphia is not entirely satisfactory. Her recollection of places and dates is poor, but this is to be expected, as she is a woman advanced in years. Moreover, we take the view that the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Gadsden v. American Nat. Bank
...support the foregoing rule where equity assumed jurisdiction: Clearwater Timber Co. v. Nez Perce County (C. C.) 155 F. 633; McKnight v. Dudley, 148 F. 204, 78 C. A. 162; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wright (C. C.) 116 F. 669 [affirmed in 117 F. 1007, 54 C. C. A. 672 (reversed on other ground......
-
Green v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation
...of authority in tax cases supports this view. Commonwealth v. Rutherfoord, 160 Va. 524, 536, 169 S.E. 909 (1933). McKnight v. Dudley, 148 F. 204, 206 (6th Cir. 1906). McCormick v. United States, 57 Treas.Dec. 117, 120 (Customs Ct.1930). Matter of Crosby, 85 Misc. (N.Y.) 679, 680--682, 148 N......
-
North Side Canal Co. v. State Board of Equalization
...the Ohio statute. Grether v. Wright (C. C. A.) 75 F. 742; Mercantile National Bank v. Hubbard (C. C. A.) 105 F. 809; McKnight v. Dudley (C. C. A.) 148 F. 204. A like statute of Arkansas has been followed by the Federal court sitting in that State; Mudge v. McDougal (D. C.) 222 F. 562. In Da......
-
Rockefeller v. O'Brien
...25 L.Ed. 903; Grether v. Wright, 75 F. 742, 23 C.C.A. 498; Lander v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 118 F. 785, 55 C.C.A. 523; McKnight v. Dudley, 148 F. 204, 78 C.C.A. 162. really essential controversy in the case is whether the assessment upon $311,040,337 of property of the plaintiff invested in ......