Wis. Transp. Co. v. Vill. of Bay

• Decision Date: 12 January 1932
• Citation: 240 N.W. 136,207 Wis. 265
• Parties: WISCONSIN TRANSPORTATION CO. v. VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS BAY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

207 Wis. 265

240 N.W. 136

WISCONSIN TRANSPORTATION CO.

v.VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS BAY.^a1

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 12, 1932.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Walworth County; E. B. Belden, Circuit Judge.

Action by the Wisconsin Transportation Company against the Village of Williams Bay. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed, with directions.

Action commenced on the 13th day of March, 1930, to recover certain taxes paid under protest to the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered on the 17th day of September, 1930, the defendant appealed.Alfred L. Godfrey, of Elkhorn (M. O. Mouat and Hiram M. Nowlan, both of Janesville, of counsel), for appellant.

Franklin J. Tyrrell, of Lake Geneva, and Simmons, Walker, Wratten & Sporer, of Racine, for respondent.

NELSON, J.

The plaintiff is a Wisconsin corporation having its principal office and place of business in the city of Lake Geneva. It is the owner of a fleet of steam and motorboats, and is engaged in the business of transporting passengers, mail, and freight on Geneva Lake. Its transportation business is seasonable, being confined to the late spring, summer, and early fall of each year. Geneva Lake freezes over during the winter, and all lake transportation is necessarily suspended. During the seasons when transportation is carried on, the plaintiff's boats ply the waters of Geneva Lake principally during the daytimes and evenings; at night the motorboats are tied up at the dock in the city of Lake Geneva and the steamboats are docked for refueling purposes at a railroad pier which extends into the lake from the village of Williams Bay. The village of Williams Bay is located on an arm of Geneva Lake, also known as Williams Bay, but does not extend beyond the shore line of the Lake. In the fall of each year, commencing about the first of October, the plaintiff removes all of its motor and steamboats from the lake to a tract of land owned by it within the corporate limits of the village of Williams Bay. The work of removing the boats from the water ordinarily requires about six weeks. Removal of its boats from the lake during the winter season is for the purpose of avoiding the ice hazard and consequent damage to the boats, and also for the purpose of repairing and reconditioning them. All of plaintiff's boats involved in this controversy remain on plaintiff's lands at Williams Bay from October until about the 15th of March, when the work of hauling them back to the lake begins. Returning the boats to the lake ordinarily requires about six weeks' time. For many years prior to 1929, the plaintiff's boats were all assessed and taxed by the city of Lake Geneva. Prior to that year, no question seems to have been raised as to the right of the city of Lake Geneva to tax them; but in that year the village of Williams Bay assessed all of the plaintiff's boats for taxation purposes. Taxes were levied. The plaintiff refused to pay the taxes, and, upon such refusal, the treasurer of the village levied upon plaintiff's entire fleet of boats and advertised them for sale. The plaintiff thereupon, under duress of said levy and threatened sale and under protest, paid to said treasurer the sum of $651. This action was then commenced to recover the amount paid. The trial court concluded that the boats in question are properly classed as “personal property having no fixed location and were taxable at the place where the owner or person in charge or possession thereof resides” as provided by section 70.13, Stats. The appellant contends that the trial court was in error in so concluding, and insists that all of the boats were properly taxable where “customarily kept,” and that the place where said property was customarily kept, within the meaning of the statute, was the village of Williams Bay.

The question for decision is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the boats in question were taxable by the city of Lake Geneva or by the village of Williams Bay, or whether some of them were taxable in one place and some in another. It is, of course, conceded that the plaintiff's boats are personal property, and are taxable as such under our laws. Section 70.15 relates to the assessment of vessels, and, so far as it is material to this controversy, provides as follows:

“70.15. Assessment of vessels. (1) That in consideration of an annual payment into the treasury of any town, village or city where such property is assessable by the owner of any steam vessel, barge, boat or other water craft, owned within this state, or hailing from any port thereof, and employed regularly in interstate traffic of a sum equal to one per cent per net ton of the registered tonnage thereof, said steam vessel, barge, boat or other water craft shall be and the same is hereby made exempt from further taxation, either state or municipal.

(2) * * * All vessels, boats or other water craft not regularly employed in interstate traffic and all private yachts or pleasure boats belonging to inhabitants of this state, whether at home or abroad, shall be taxed as personal property.”

The plaintiff's boats are not engaged in interstate traffic and clearly fall within the provisions of section 70.15 (2), supra. This section provides that such boats shall be taxed as personal property, but does not fix the exact situs for taxation.

Section 70.13 provides where all personal property not otherwise specifically provided for shall be assessed. So much of said section as requires consideration is as follows: “70.13. Where personal property assessed. (1) All personal property shall be assessed in the assessment district where the same is located or customarily kept except as otherwise specifically provided. * * * Personal property having no fixed location shall be assessed in the district where the owner or the person in charge or possession thereof resides, except as provided in subsection (5) of this section.”

[1][2] It must be presumed that the enactment of section 70.13 resulted in a comprehensive scheme for the taxation of all personal property within this state, except such as is specifically declared to be exempt from taxation or is...