The New York herald., 1849-11-14

Aldermen none of whom is Patrick Kelly, by typo
graphical mistake we're made to say the reverse,
namely, {" one Of whom is Patrick Kelly"
DEATH sr ASTHMA The Coroner, yesterday, held an
inquest board the steamship Southernsr lying at
pier No A. the body Of of the passengers by the
name Of Lafayette yandeventer aged about 35 years
former resident Of Washington, New Jersey where he
has family residing 1t seems the deceased much
afflicted with asthma, and on his voyage from Charles
and the arrival Of the ship he expired The Jury
rendered a verdict that his death was caused by
asthma.
Supreme Court.
IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE TAxABILITY OF MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANIES
The Sun Mutual Insurance Company Us. The Mayor Of
the Cify Of New York. Judge EDwARps-The question
which is presented to me by the statement OF facts
agreed upon by the parties is, whether the accumu-
lated net profits upon insurances which are nov re-
naming in the hands Of the Sun Mutual Insurance
Company, or which have been invested by It, are
taxable against the company under the provisions OF
the Revised Statutes By the ninth section OF its
charter OF Incorporation the company bound during
the first month OF every year. to cause an estimate to
be made OF the profits and true state OF the affairs OF
the company, for the preceding year; and to cause
balance TO be struck, in which each member Is to be
charged with proportionate share of the losses Of the
company, according to the original amount Of pre-
mium paid by him but in no case is such share to
exceed the amount of such premium. 1t is also pro-
vded that each member shall be credited with the
amount OF said premium aud also with an equal share
Of the profits OF the company derived from
In proportion to the amount and that each member
shall thereupon be entitled to a certificate on the
c,edit in the said company SUCH certificate TO con-
tain proviso that the amount named therein Is liable
for any future loss by said company Qaws lsio 26l
section 81 By section of the charter, provision is
made tor the investment of the premiums received by
the company. (bid section IL is also further pro-
vded that, whenever the accumulation of net profits
shall exceed half million of dollars the may be
applied from scar TO year thereafter towards the
dempton Of each years certificate successfully in
whole in part but the certificates of n subsequent
year shall not be redeemed until those Of preceding
years are provided for Claws 1910, 252, section IL
1t appears that the only property which Is held by the
company consists OF premiums received by It, and OF
profits accruna from the investment Of such pre-
murns; and that, whatever remains in the shape OF
profits in striking the annual balance whether arising
from premiums or Investments Is credited to the
members OF the company AMI that certificates are
daily cred to them pro rata declaring that they
titled to amount therein particularly specified in
the invested funds OF the company. II will be seen
that the profits all belong to the members OF the com
pany They according to the certificates delivered to
them entitled to portion Of the invested funds
equal TO their share Of the profits The objects OF the
company however render IL necessary that the profits
shall renan in its possession hence there Ia provso
In the charter, that premium paid shall ever be
"tuiawui put snaii uu aole " al .ie iosses a"u
penses incurred by the company, during the con-
tnuance of Its charter But although these funds
remain under the control Of the company, and
invested by H. still, they are nos owned
by 1t. On the contrary, the certificates which
are delivered to the members and which represent
all the funds declare that the holders OF the cercates
are ent tiled to such funds These funds Ia the
tuIe of deposits which held by the company, and
upon which 1t pays interest unless in Of loss the
quirec for the payment OF losses There can be no
doubt that the fg ds held by the company taxable
the only question i In what shape Or in other words
who is taxable for them 1t seems TO me, clearly that
they not taxable against the company under the
provision OF the statute which declares that all lands
personal estate within this State, whether owned
by individuals or by corporations, shall be liable to
taxation Il n. s. 3S7, ~ They are not taxable
against the company under this section Of the statute
because they not owned by the company. They
Lsld by the company, but they belong to the
bers holding the certificates Of the compauy But it is
81. IL.
tate owned by the company, they taxable capta
stook under the provision OF the statute which de-
olares that all moneyed, or stock corporations de-
rivipg an income profit from their capital other
Wiss snail be liable TO taxation their capital In the
manner hereinafter prescribed" r. S. ala, l) The
next question TO be considered, thea, IL, whether
the funds held by the company arc capital stocks
by the second section of the statute which provides for
the taxation IL Incorporated companies ~ IL declared
that the proper officer Of the company shall make out
written statement, specifying the real estate Of the
compan " ana the capital stock paid n aud secured to
be paid in excepting thesfrom the paid for real
estate and the amount Of such capital stock held BY
the state, and by any incorporated literary or charta
provisions 10 the IN which the assessment
rolls shall be made outQ X. s. 4ii, AIS Under these
provisions Of the statute u held Ia the Of the
"Bank Of Utica vs. the City Of Utica" q Paige, 3g9)
that corporation which "a liable 20 taxation upon its
capital cannot be taxed for lis surplus profits remain
ing on hand and undivided They not capital stock
paid in secured to be paid in In the Of The
People the Supervisors OF Niagara a Hin, 2o), the
of the Bank of Utica eitsd with APPRECIATION
and the rule laid down that in taxing capital stock
respect is paid TO accumulaions losses, in the
If the business of the company. In the OF
the Farmers Loan and Trust Company VS. the Mayor
sc of New York" q Hill 26i) the Court for the
Correction Of Errors held the doctrine Now IL
this company had been organized by the subscription OF
capital stock In the usual manner In which stock
company IL established and there had been an undi-
vded urpus aTsing from the premiums received such
surplus would clearly not BE- taxable es capital stock,
within the principle established In the cases above
cited Such being the case IL Is not easy to how
eceumulations arising from the shall be
taxable capital stock, In the Of company
formed upon the principle OF mutual sssocia-
tion, and where capital stock Is subscribed
IL was conterdsd on the argument, that the provi-
sion contained In the eleventh section Of the charter
for the redemption Of certain certificates after the
emulation Of the nett profits shall exceed half a mil.
lion Of dollars. creates capital stock. This view
evidently founded upon misconcsption Of the effect
Of the section referred to- 10 will be upon
animation Of this provision OF the charter that IL does
not leave any portion OF the invested funds unrspre
sented by certificates On the contrary, the certid
Gates Issued In each year must represent the whole
payment Of losses and expenses The ec0acusou then,
TO which have arrived Is that the accumulated pro-
s held by the company not personal estate owned
BY g. within the meaning of the statute; they
capital stock for which the company s liable TO taxa
ton BY the amended act of 1874 10 IL declared that
all certificates and inefett In the company shall be
deemed personal property Uaws 1874 50, ~ and as
such, they will be taxable a. against the individual
member, Of the company who hold them % far they
represent property which Il In itself taxabls-or, in
other words the funds held by the company taxa
BILE against the holders II the certificates aud not
against the company.
Court OF General Sessions.
Before the Recorder and Aldermen j. Kelly and Clark
Further PosPonsmsnt ef te .1itor Place Riot Trais-