Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, Kansas

Decision Date01 October 1875
Citation91 U.S. 206,23 L.Ed. 302
PartiesMITCHELL v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court or Kansas.

THIS case presents the following facts: Mitchell, the plaintiff, kept his account with a banking firm in Leavenworth. On the 28th February, 1870, he had a balance to his credit of $19,350 in current funds, for which he that day gave his check, payable to himself in United States notes. They were paid to him. He immediately enclosed them in a sealed package, and placed them for safe keeping in the vault of the bank. On the 3d March he withdrew his package, and deposited the notes to his credit. This was done for the sole purpose of escaping taxation upon his money on deposit.

Personal property in Kansas, which includes money on deposit, is listed for taxation as of March 1 in each year. Mitchell did not list any money on deposit. The taxing officers, in due time, on discovery of the facts, added $9,000 to his assessment on account of his money in bank. He asked the proper authorities to strike off this added assessment. This was refused. A tax was thereupon in due form levied, and its collection threatened.

He then filed his bill in equity against the defendants, who are the proper authorities, to restrain the collection of this tax, alleging for cause, in substance, that as his bank balance had been converted into United States notes, and was held in that form on the day his property was to be listed, he could not be taxed on that account. The Supreme Court of Kansas, on appeal, dismissed the bill, for the reason, as appears by the opinion, which in this case is sent here as part of the record,—that 'a court of justice, sitting as a court of equity, will not lend its aid for the accomplishment of any such purpose.' Mitchell sued out a writ of error.

Messrs. R. M. & Quinton Corwine and Mr. J. W. English for the plaintiff in error.

The statute of Kansas imposing a tax on personal property provides that all property shall be listed as on the first day of March in each year. Its intent is to assess such property as is then liable to taxation. If there is none on that day, there is no right of taxation.

The object of all taxation is to compel lawfully taxable property of every kind to contribute its just proportion of taxes. It must, however, on the proper day of assessment, have an actual bona fide existence as such, in order that the law of the State may reach it.

The right of the plaintiff in error...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Beauchamp v. Bertig
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1909
    ...for a totally inadequate consideration, with a view to obtaining an unconscionable advantage. 91 U.S. 643; 135 U.S. 457; 165 U.S. 386; 91 U.S. 206; 108 U.S. 218; 70 F. 376; F. 231; 69 F. 740; 98 F. 872. When a court of a sister State has assumed jurisdiction over the person, it must be pres......
  • State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hoehn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1943
    ... ... Louis, Jesse A. Mitchell, Clarence Evans and Lawrence Boogher, as Members ... and Wilson Bell, as Members of the State Board of Equalization of Missouri No. 38505 Supreme ... v. Board of ... Supervisors of Marshall County, 52 Miss. 281; In re ... Dean's Estate, 166 ... 324; Mitchell v ... Leavenworth County, 9 Kan. 344, affirmed in 91 U.S. 206, ...          "The ... Commissioners further find that on the 26th day of May, 1941, ... The Supreme ... Court of Kansas held that, [351 Mo. 390] his motive being to ... ...
  • Leo Feist, Inc. v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • August 25, 1942
    ...a violation of positive law or for the evasion of the requirements of ethics and morality. Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, Kansas, 91 U.S. 206, 208, 23 L.Ed. 302. There the plaintiff worked out a quaint scheme to avoid paying personal property taxes due on March fi......
  • Leo Feist v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 3, 1943
    ...for prosecution." Wis. Stat.1941, § 177.01, p. 1994. 2 Feist v. Young, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 622, 628. 3 Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, 91 U.S. 206, 208, 23 L.Ed. 302; Bell & Howell Co. v. Bliss, 7 Cir., 262 F. 131, 134; Memphis Keeley Institute v. Keeley, 6 Cir., 155 ......
  • 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