Torrey v. Cnty. of Shawano

Citation48 N.W. 246,79 Wis. 152
PartiesTORREY ET AL. v. COUNTY OF SHAWANO.
Decision Date24 February 1891
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Shawano county.

Gary & Forward, for appellants.

G. C. Dickinson and M. J. Wallrich, for respondent.

TAYLOR, J.

This is an action to recover for taxes paid by the plaintiffs under protest, levied and assessed upon certain personal property of the plaintiffs. The taxes were levied and assessed upon a lot of cedar ties, posts, and poles, situate in the town of Wittenberg, in said county of Shawano. On the trial the following admissions were made, viz.: “It is admitted that on the 1st day of May, 1888, town officers of the town of Wittenberg assessed certain property belonging to the plaintiffs, located at Wittenberg; that the tax was not paid by the plaintiffs to the town, and was returned delinquent to the county treasurer of Shawano county, who scheduled these taxes with others, as required by law, annexed his warrant thereto, and placed the same in the hands of M. M. Porter, sheriff of Shawano county, for collection; that on or before the 14th day of May, 1889, said sheriff had said warrant in his possession for the collection of said taxes; that on the 14th day of May, 1889, plaintiffs paid to said sheriff the sum of $48.23, which included $2.30 sheriff's fees, and that said money was paid by the sheriff, less his fees, $2.30, to the county treasurer of Shawano county.” The defendant made no contention that the plaintiffs had voluntarily paid the tax in question. The only question litigated was whether the property was taxable in the town of Wittenberg, or whether it should have been assessed and taxed to the plaintiffs at their place of residence at Clintonville, Waupaca county. After hearing the evidence, both parties moved that the court direct a verdict. The plaintiffs asked the court to direct a verdict in their favor. This was denied, and, on motion of the defendant, the court directed a verdict in its favor, to which the plaintiffs duly excepted. After verdict, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the minutes of the court, which was overruled, and exception taken, and from the judgment entered in favor of the defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

The ground upon which the court directed a verdict for the defendant was that the evidence showed conclusively that the property in question, at the time it was assessed and taxed, “was merchants' goods, wares, or commodities, kept for sale” by the plaintiffs in the town of Wittenberg, and so were assessable and taxable in that town. The only question for the consideration of this court is whether the evidence supports the contention of the respondent county. There is no dispute as to the facts on the evidence. The plaintiffs are merchants, doing business in Clintonville, at which place their sales were made as a general thing. The ties, posts, and poles belonging to the plaintiffs in the town of Wittenberg were delivered to the plaintiffs at that place, on the right of way of the Lake Shore Railroad Company. They were delivered at or near the station, so that they could be loaded on the cars from the places where they were situated upon the right of way. Most of the ties, posts, and poles owned by the plaintiffs at that place were shipped directly from there to the persons purchasing the same, and only a small percentage of them was brought to their business place at Clintonville. Most of the sales and purchases of these ties, posts, and poles were made at Clintonville, and shipped directly to the purchasers from the place of their location at Wittenberg. The plaintiff did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Fleming
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 26, 1913
    ...... Crim. Rep. 324. . .          The. appellant was not a transient merchant. Torrey v. Showano. County, 79 Wis. 152, 48 N.W. 246; Crater v. Deemer, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 375; Rosenbaum v. ......
  • Eaton v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 5, 1917
    ...the operations. Burgess v. New England Marine Ins. Co., 10 Allen, 221;Van Patten v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520, 8 N. W. 334;Torrey v. Shawano County, 79 Wis. 152, 48 N. W. 246. A time book which was properly admitted in evidence also showed not only the number of men employed by the day or hour ......
  • Eaton v. Globe and Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 5, 1917
    ......Burgess v. Alliance Ins. Co. 10 Allen, 221. Van. Patten & Marks v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 520. Torrey v. Shawano County, 79 Wis. 152. A time book which was. properly admitted in evidence also showed ......
  • State ex rel. Lake Nebagamon Ice Co. v. McPhee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 3, 1912
    ...places, although the sales were made in Superior. Valentine Clark Co. v. Shawano County, 120 Wis. 310, 97 N. W. 915;Torrey v. Shawano County, 79 Wis. 152, 48 N. W. 246;Sanford v. Spencer, 62 Wis. 230, 22 N. W. 465;Mitchell v. Plover, 53 Wis. 548, 11 N. W. 27. That ice stored in an icehouse ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT