State v. William Deering & Co., 8499.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1893
• Docket Number: No. 8499.,8499.
• Citation: 56 Minn. 24
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM DEERING & CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

56 Minn. 24

STATE OF MINNESOTAvs.

WILLIAM DEERING & CO.

No. 8499.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Submitted on briefs December 4, 1893.

Affirmed December 28, 1893.

Appeal by defendant, William Deering & Co., a corporation, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Thomas Canty, J., entered September 19, 1893.

The revised list of delinquent taxes assessed and levied upon personal property in Hennepin County for 1891 was filed in the office of the Clerk of the District Court July 20, 1892, whereby it appeared that $388.88 was due from defendant. A citation was issued and served requiring it to show cause why it should not pay said tax and penalty. Defendant answered that it was incorporated in Illinois and had its residence, manufactory and principal place of business there. That it had, since February 1, 1891, shipped some of its agricultural machinery and twine to Minneapolis and stored it there for the purpose of forwarding it to other points where it had been ordered and sold and contracts made for its delivery to purchasers. That the property was in Minneapolis only temporarily. That defendant had paid taxes thereon in Illinois. That no assessor in Minnesota had ever made or asked for any list of the property or appraised its value or applied to any of its agents for such list or appraisal and it prayed that the proceedings be dismissed, and for general relief. At the trial on February 1, 1893, the defendant made proof of the facts stated in its answer. The Court made findings stating these facts and that the value of defendant's property in its warehouse in Minneapolis on May 1, 1891, exceeded $40,000, and ordered judgment to be entered against it for the tax and penalty. Judgment was entered accordingly and defendant appealed.

Spooner & Taylor and Lewis C. Spooner, for appellant.

Frank M. Nye and James A. Peterson, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

This is a contest over a personal tax, assessed against the appellants, upon their stock of machinery in the city of Minneapolis. Their home office and manufacturing establishment are in the city of Chicago, but at the time of the assessment in question, as well as before and since, the defendants also maintained a large warehouse in the city of Minneapolis, to and from which agricultural machinery has been transferred for the convenient supply of the demands of their customers for Minnesota and other northwestern states. It was practically a branch or department of their business. The warehouse was needed for the storage of machinery for the northwest trade, and goods were supplied therefrom to their customers in filling orders therefor previously received. The court, among other things, finds that machinery was stored in this warehouse for the purpose of relieving the defendants' storehouse in Chicago, and of storing the same here until needed for sale and shipment. It is not...