State v. Maxwell Motor Sales Corporation

• Decision Date: 11 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21,217.,21,217.
• Citation: 142 Minn. 226
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. MAXWELL MOTOR SALES CORPORATION.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

Page 226

142 Minn. 226

STATE v. MAXWELL MOTOR SALES CORPORATION.¹

No. 21,217.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 11, 1919.

In the matter of the assessment and taxation of personal property for the year 1916, defendant corporation filed its answer to a citation from the district court for Hennepin county, and alleged that defendant was not engaged in the transaction of any business whatsoever in the state of Minnesota on May 1, 1916, nor any business done on behalf of defendant, and that all its business was conducted at Detroit, Michigan, where all its accounts and assets were kept; that the automobiles and materials arbitrarily assessed had been manufactured, sold and loaded on cars, outside of the state of Minnesota, long prior to May 1, 1916, and

were consigned to points within Minnesota or to points beyond, and said automobiles and materials were instruments of interstate commerce and were, if at all, in the city of Minneapolis and state of Minnesota, temporarily only, and were in transit and did not remain longer than was necessary for shipment to the owners thereof. The matter was heard by Dickinson, J., who made findings, affirmed the valuation of the board of equalization, and ordered judgment for $3,750.37. From an order denying its motion to amend the findings, order for judgment and judgment, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

M. A. Jordan, for appellant.

William M. Nash, County Attorney, and Frank J. Williams, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

1. Defendant was taxed in Hennepin county for 460 automobiles in its possession on May 1, 1916. From a judgment sustaining the tax defendant appeals.

Defendant manufactures automobiles at Detroit, Michigan. The court found the following facts:

"That defendant sent its salesmen into the territory embraced in the states of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana and Eastern Wisconsin to take orders from local dealers. These orders were taken as near to July 1st of each year as was possible and provided for distributing the delivery of automobiles so ordered over the succeeding twelve months in accordance with the anticipated sales by the local dealers and provided expressly for the number of automobiles to be delivered in each of said months.

"On account of difficulties experienced by defendant in procuring railroad equipment at all seasons of the year for making deliveries on their contracts with the dealers at the times therein provided, defendant shipped automobiles, sufficient in number to cover the orders previously taken, to the city of Minneapolis, at such times as railroad equipment was available. These automobiles were shipped to the defendant at the city of Minneapolis, there unloaded from the cars and stored in various warehouses to await the time of delivery called for in various contracts hereinbefore referred to. When these deliveries were due, the home office at Detroit forwarded to defendant's representatives at Minneapolis shipping instructions. Acting on these instructions the representative at Minneapolis caused the automobiles to be shipped in accordance therewith, drawing on the dealers for the purchase price with bill of lading attached to the draft.

"That on May 1st, 1916, there were in various warehouses in the 5th ward of the city of Minneapolis 460 automobiles so shipped by defendant to its order of the value of $218,500.00.

"These automobiles were in storage in the warehouses for indefinite periods of time awaiting instructions to the local representative for their shipment to the dealers under the contract previously taken. The automobiles so in the warehouses on May 1st, 1916, had arrived there from thirty to sixty days prior to May 1st, many of them remaining there for sixty days or longer, thereafter."

Defendant attacks the findings. The only evidence is that of defendant's branch superintendent in Minneapolis. It is unimpeached and is to be taken as true. We think it substantially sustains the findings of the court, subject however, to the following additions or modifications: Orders from dealers are embodied in written agreements procured from distributors by defendant's salesmen and these are forwarded to Detroit and are signed there by an officer of defendant. Orders from Detroit to the Minneapolis branch directing the distribution of cars sometimes go forward as cars are shipped from Detroit to Minneapolis, sometimes t...