Case ID: nev_13/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 881.]
    STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents, v. NORTHERN BELLE MILL and MINING COMPANY, Appellant.
    Tax ox Proceeds oi? Mixes — Deductiox oe Pieteex Dollars per Tox— PxEiBDRa Process. —Tlie mine-owner working his ores under the Freiburg process is not entitled to an exemption of fifteen dollars per ton in addition to the actual cost of working the ore. [State v. Eureka Con. M. Co., 8 Nev. 15, affirmed.)
    This was a suit for taxes delinquent upon an assessment of tlie proceeds of defendant’s mine, for the quarter ending March 81, 1877. In making the assessment the assessor deducted, from the gross yield of the ore extracted, the total cost of extraction, transportation and reduction, and computed the tax upon the balance remaining after those deductions. (2 Comp. Laws, secs. 3245, 3246.) The defendant claimed that it was entitled to a still further deduction of fifteen dollars per ton on the amount of ore reduced during the quarter, by reason of the fact that it was worked by the Ereiburg process. The defendant pleaded and proved a tender of the amount of the t ix on the net proceeds less the fifteen dollars per ton claimed by it as an additional exemption. The state recovered judgment for the larger amount as computed by the assessor. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order overruling its motion for a new trial.
    
      A. TV. Crocker and T. TV. TV. Davies, for Appellant.
    
      J. B. KUtrell, Attorney-general, and M. A. Murphy, for Respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The only question involved in this case, viz: whether the mine-owner whose ore is worked by the Ereiburg process is entitled, after the deduction of the entire cost of extraction, transportation and reduction, to a further deduction from the net proceeds of the mine of fifteen dollars per ton, to be exempt from taxation — was decided adversely to the appellant, after a full and thorough discussion and upon perfectly conclusive reasoning, in the case of the State v. Eureka Con. M. Co., (8 Nev. 22 to 24.) On the authority of that case the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.