Senour v. Ruth
| Decision Date | 21 February 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,166 |
| Citation | 39 N.E. 946,140 Ind. 318 |
| Parties | Senour, Treasurer, v. Ruth |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marshall Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
J. D McLaren, for appellant.
C. P Drummond, for appellee.
The record in this case presents the question of the liability of the appellee, a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois, for taxes for State and county purposes, upon credits in his favor and against citizens of Marshall county State of Indiana, such credits resulting from loans evidenced by promissory notes held by him in the State of Illinois and secured by mortgages of the real estate of the debtors in said county. Said credits were listed for taxation, by the county assessor, for the year 1892, and, in July of that year, the county board of review, after notice personally served upon the appellee in the city of Chicago to appear and show cause, if any, why said credits should not be assessed for taxation, ordered the same assessed and extended for taxation.
In the absence of a statute subjecting such property to taxation in this State, it has been frequently held not subject to taxation. Foresman v. Byrns, 68 Ind. 247; Herron, Treas., v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472; Conwell, Presidsnt, etc., v. President, etc., of Town of Connersville, 15 Ind. 150; City of Evansville v. Hall, 14 Ind. 27.
The principle upon which these cases have been decided is that such property is intangible, and its situs is at the place of residence of the owner. The same conclusion as to the situs of tangible personal property has been reached, in some cases, where such property has been found but temporarily in this State, and its owner has not been a resident of this State. Standard Oil Co. v. Bachelor, 89 Ind. 1.
But not so when such property is permanently within the State. Rieman v. Shepard, 27 Ind. 288; Powell v. City of Madison, 21 Ind. 335; Standard Oil Co. v. Combs, 96 Ind. 179.
However, as to this class of property, we do not now seek to review the cases or render any decision; our purpose is but to show the existence and recognition in this State of the rule concerning the situs, for purposes of taxation, of intangible property. Counsel cite the act of 1891 (Acts 1891, section 3, subd. 4, section 11, p. 199) as subjecting the property in question to taxation in this State. It is as follows:
Expressly by the first of these provisions, and impliedly by the second, the authority is given to tax property within the jurisdiction of this State. The appellee's debtor, and the property securing the debt, are within the jurisdiction of this State, but the notes, the subject of the attempted taxation, and the appellee are not within the jurisdiction of this State, and authority for such taxation is not given.
In the case of Herron, Treas., v. Keeran supra, the notes, bonds and credits of a nonresident were temporarily on deposit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial