Woodward v. Edmondson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Citation: Woodward v. Edmondson, 44 Ga. 651 (Ga. 1872)
• Parties: CARY, BANGS & WOODWARD, plaintiffs in error, v. J. L. EDMONDSON, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

44 Ga. 651

CARY, BANGS & WOODWARD, plaintiffs in error, v. J. L. EDMONDSON, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1872.)

RELIEF ACT OF1870—TAXATION*—NONRESIDENTS.—(By two Judges.)—Non-residents of this State are not required, by ourlaw, to pay taxes on notes held by them on citizens of this State, and when the payee of a note is the plaintiff in a suit on a note dated before June, 1865, and it appears that, at the date of the note, and continuously since, he has not resided here, and that he has been the owner of the note from its date, he is not required to make the affidavit of taxes being paid as required by the Act of October 13th, 1870. 27th February, 1872.

Taxes.Relief Act of 1870.Before Judge Harrell.Terrell Superior Court.May Term, 1871.

Cary, Bangs & Woodward sued Edmondson upon his promissory notes dated in i860, and purporting to have been made in Baltimore.He filed several pleas, one of which was that he ought to pay no interest because "said notes were held during the war by the parties who resided in the city of Baltimore and could not be paid."Because no affidavit of the payment of taxes had been filed under the Relief Act of 1870, the Court dismissed the cause, although their "attorney stated and offered to prove that they were non-residents."This is assigned as error.

R. F. Simmons by Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiffs in error.

Wooten & Hoyle, for defendant.

McCAY, Judge.

This case turns upon the non-residence of the plaintiff.We have decided in several cases that notes held by-non-residents of this State, not used here, but only here for collection, are not taxable by our laws.The proof here is that at the making of the note, and continuously since, the plaintiff, to whom the note is payable, has not resided in this State.This the judgment, under these rulings, made, doubtless, since this decision by Judge Harrell, must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

*"TAXATION—SITUS OF A DEBT.—In Armour Packing Co. v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 552, 553, 44 S. E. Rep. 990, the court said: "It is to be conceded that by the decided weight of authority the general rule is that debts follow the person of the creditor and are to be taxed at his domicile.This court, however, held in an early case that, for purposes of taxation, the situs of a debt is the place where the debtor resides.Bridges v. Griffin, 33 Ga. 113.In that case it was sought to tax notes owned by a resident of this state, due by persons residing...