State ex rel. the Mechanics And Traders Insurance Co. v. Board of Assessors Et Als
| Decision Date | 18 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | 11,802 |
| Citation | 47 La.Ann. 1544,18 So. 519 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL. THE MECHANICS AND TRADERS INSURANCE CO. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET ALS |
Argued May 21, 1895
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Theard, J.
John Q Flynn and W. B. Lancaster, for Plaintiff, Appellant.
E.A O'Sullivan, City Attorney, and Henry Renshaw, Assistant City Attorney, for the City of New Orleans, Defendant Appellee.
WATKINS J. MR. JUSTICE BREAUX dissents in this case for the reasons stated at length by him in State ex rel. Mechanics and Traders Insurance Company vs. Board of Assessors, No. 11,659, recently decided. Ante., page 1509.
This suit relates to the assessment of relator's property for the year 1893, and is quite similar to the suit of same title bearing the docket number 11,659, and this day decided in favor of the respondent Board of Assessors.
The relator seeks the cancellation of its assessment, which is composed of the following items, viz.:
1. Premiums in course of collection.
2. Bills receivable.
3. Bonds of the State of Georgia.
4. Certain shares of the Standard Guano and Chemical Company and National Acid Company.
In so far as the first and fourth are concerned, nothing need be said, for the course of reasoning and decision in suit No. 11,659 are strictly applicable and must control our decision in this suit pro tanto.
In so far as the bills receivable are concerned, no proof was administered to demonstrate their exemption from taxation, and there is nothing otherwise to show that relator is entitled to the alleged exemption.
With regard to the Georgia State bonds, it appears that they aggregate twenty-eight thousand three hundred and fifty dollars in amount, are the property of relator, and are on deposit with the treasurer of that State.
The rule established in Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company (44 An. 760) is that credits due to a non-resident were assessable and taxable at the domicile of the owner; but that decision made an exception in favor of tangible assets and other personal property, and held that same were assessable at their actual situs.
But it has never been decided that tangible personal property could not be assessed at the owner's domicile, notwithstanding its actual situs was abroad, in some other State or country.
State tax on foreign held bonds (15 Wallace, 300) is not to the contrary; for in that case the court say: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial