The Bd. of Supervisors of Tazewell County v. Davenport

• Decision Date: 30 April 1866
• Citation: 40 Ill. 197,1866 WL 4456
• Parties: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TAZEWELL COUNTY et al.v.JOHN DAVENPORT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

40 Ill. 197

1866 WL 4456 (Ill.)

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TAZEWELL COUNTY et al.

v.JOHN DAVENPORT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1866.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. JOHN M. SCOTT, Judge, presiding.

This was a suit in chancery commenced in February, 1864, in the Circuit Court of Tazewell county, by John Davenport against the board of supervisors of Tazewell county and Hugh K. Alexander; and the cause was subsequently removed into the Circuit Court of McLean county, upon change of venue.

The bill was to enjoin the board of supervisors of Tazewell county, and Hugh K. Alexander, the collector of taxes for the town and city of Pekin, in said county, from the collection of certain taxes assessed by the assessor of Pekin, for the year A. D. 1863, upon defendant in error personally and as agent for Ira Davenport, Charles Davenport and Martin Adsit.

An injunction was granted, which, upon the hearing, the Circuit Court made perpetual. The defendants thereupon sued out this writ of error.

The only question considered by the court is, whether John Davenport was a resident of this State, within the meaning of our revenue law. The facts in the case, upon which this question depends, are fully set forth in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. COHRS & IRELAND and Messrs. COOPER & MOSS, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. H. M. WEAD, for the defendant in error. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

Two questions are presented by this record: First, has a court of chancery jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the bill of complaint, and, second, was the complainant therein a resident of this State, or the property which he controlled as agent, or which he held in his own right, liable to taxation in this State under our revenue laws.

The first question is of no importance if the second is decided against the defendant in error, and to that we will devote our attention.

Very able arguments have been presented on both sides of this question, and we have examined them and deliberated upon them with studious care.

The defendant, it appears, was assessed personally, and as agent for Ira Davenport, Charles Davenport and Martin Adsit, upon money on hand and money loaned.

He objected to the assessment, on the ground that he was not a resident of this State, and appealed to the board of supervisors. The board confirmed the assessment, whereupon the defendant in error filed a bill in chancery to restrain the collection of the assessment. The Circuit Court made the injunction perpetual.

The important question presented is, was complainant a resident of this State within the meaning of our revenue laws?

Those laws provide, that all property, real and personal, in this State, shall be liable to taxation, subject to the exceptions stated. Scates' Comp. 987. “That all property real or personal in this State, all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, of persons residing in this State, or used or controlled by persons residing in this State, shall be entered on the list of taxable property in the manner prescribed in this act.” Id. 1046.

The term “money” or “moneys,” wherever used in this act, shall be held to mean gold or silver coin and bank-notes in actual possession, and every deposit which the person owning, holding in trust, or having the beneficial interest therein, is entitled to withdraw in money on demand. The term “credits” shall be held to mean and include every claim or demand for money, labor, or other valuable thing due, or to become due, or every annuity, or sum of money receivable at stated periods, and all money invested in property of any kind which is secured by deed, mortgage or otherwise, which the person, holding such deed or mortgage or evidence of claim, is bound by any lease, contract or agreement, to reconvey, release, or assign upon the payment of any specific sum or sums. Id. 1047, Act of 1853.

By section four of the same act it is provided, that every person of full age and sound mind, not a married woman, shall list the real property of which he is the owner, situate in the town or district in which he resides, the personal property of which he is the owner, all moneys in his possession, money loaned or invested, and all other property of which he is the owner; and he shall also list all moneys invested, loaned or otherwise controlled by him as the agent or attorney, or on account of any other person or persons, company or corporation whatsoever, and all moneys subject to his order, check or draft, and credits due from or owing by any person or persons, body corporate or politic, whether in or out of said county. And by the same section it is provided, that every person required to list property on behalf of others, by the provisions of this act, shall list it in the same county, town or district in which he would be required to list it, if such property were his own. Id. 1048, 1049.

The proof shows that, in February, 1859, the defendant came to the city of Pekin, in the county of Tazewell, to loan money upon real estate, not only for himself, but as agent for his father, Ira Davenport, and his uncle, Charles Davenport, and one Martin Adsit, and so continued to loan money up to the commencement of this suit. These loans were made as permanent investments, and principal and interest, when paid, were re-invested on the same kind of security. The deeds, in all cases, were recorded in the proper office in Tazewell county, and in other counties in which the security was situated. While engaged in this business, he made the city of Pekin his head-quarters; it was his post-office address. The banking-house there of Rupert & Co. was his place of doing business generally, but sometimes in the office of Mr. C. Young. When Rupert & Co. quit business, defendant kept his office and did business with Leonard & Co. and Greigg & Co., in the same city --had a table and desk there for the transaction of his business, and kept his valuable papers, and sometimes money, in the safe of their bank. When his father was there he, also, used this office and safe, and defendant carried a duplicate key of the office. When defendant went east he left the papers in relation to loans not completed, and notes maturing during his absence, in the safe, and sometimes in the care of Rupert & Co. When any changes of payments or collections were to be made, applications for that purpose were made to defendant. When papers were forwarded east, they were not returned to Pekin except for collection or payment, though extensions of time of payment would be granted by defendant without the papers being there. Defendant had possession of securities for loans made there from November, 1862, to July, 1863. When the principal of loans was paid, it was generally at once re-invested in loans made by him. He is a single man, of mature age, and has no other business but to attend to these loans. Money collected on them was seldom remitted east if it could be re-invested here--only in a few instances. Notes taken by him in making loans were mostly made payable in Pekin, and notes made payable in other places were paid at Pekin. Since 1859 large amounts were deposited with Rupert & Co. to the credit of defendant. The father of defendant said, in 1860, when at Pekin, that loaning money there was a good business, and that defendant should follow it; that he would let all the money he had loaned there remain on loan, and he would get more and send to defendant to loan. Charles Davenport also sent money to defendant to loan as the defendant would write for it, and they both seemed disposed to make it a permanent business, and they always extended or renewed good loans. Adsit lived in Chicago, and had been a partner in business with defendant's father, and owed him large amounts, and, as fast as payments were made by him on this indebtedness, the money would be sent to defendant, and be invested in loans. Adsit was often made trustee in the trust-deeds for Ira and Charles. This business was continued from July, 1858, at which time the father commenced it, up to July, 1863, when it ceased, because defendant was required to give in a list of these loans for assessment. The largest amount, and most money, was loaned in Tazewell county, but all loans were perfected, money advanced and deeds delivered at Pekin, and kept in the bank safe of Rupert & Co. When defendant first came to Pekin, in 1859, he brought letters from his father, Ira, to Rupert & Co., stating that he came to make loans and collect those matured, and desired that firm to assist and instruct him in doing it safely. This was all defendant did while in Pekin, and he gave his whole attention to it. He stayed from one to four months, never leaving while he had money on hand, and remaining away only during the hot and sickly season of the year, and then returning. While in this State he resided in Pekin. After he was assessed on these loans he left, and required parties who had business with him to write to him at Bath, New York, and prohibited Greigg & Co., the successors of Rupert & Co., from receiving money on any loans. He changed the place of transacting business from Pekin, in this State, to Bath, in the State of New York. While in Pekin he had charge and control of the notes and securities taken for loans.

In July, 1863, the loans amounted, in the counties of Logan, Tazewell and Mason, to more than $250,000, all, or nearly all of which had been negotiated at Pekin, and were at an interest of ten per cent. per annum besides a commission to defendant ranging from two and one-half to five per cent. payable by the borrower over and above the interest. Defendant commenced this business in February, 1859, and carried it on to July, 1863. He now insists, although doing this profitable and extensive business, under the protection of the laws of this State, he is not amenable to the revenue laws of the State-- that he was a mere...