The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1853-03-19

Us the strlctncSS OF that princple is in many
cases modified by statutory provisions. which,
Tor purposes OF taxation Give distinct IocaIi,v
to moveab"s. Thus, br the act of A. D. ls4i
SEC - partners IN mercantile or other bust
ness may be Jointly assessed by their partner
snip name, In the town where their business
Is carried on, for all their personal property
employed IN the business. whether they re-
side in the same or different towns Tia,
enactment comprised in Its operation the per
Sonal property in the plaintiffs partnership
both at home and abroad. 1t was all brought
wlthn the cognlzance and jurisdiction of the
ueiehdants AS listers; part being present in
TACT ana the rest constructivelv present for
the purposes of their action Bv the act of
a. ID, 1917, they were required to give it To-
cahty, with view to taxation for school dis
trict purposes. They We're evidently bound,
IN conformity with the fact to treat all the
property which was at home on the first dav
Of April, \. ID. 1913 as HAVING its location in
nIstI'ct No. one The words already rccitcl
from the llrst section of the act would appear
10 admit no other construction And we con
sider that the residence should also have been
50 treated We discover nothing in the Stat
ute to authorize an ideal separation of this
JOINT property; nor do We think that such a
result would be produced, by an application
OF The common law rule upon which the de-
PENDANTS seem to have relied 1t would seem
mat even that theory, as applied to a part
ner>mp III active operation, must sooner refer
the S''Us OF their personal effects to the blsi-
"e%S "om'cH n tie F,m, Off such an expression
I.. how, ,l,ot s,
individually. For in the latter CASE it would
either suppose a distribution of the effects a
h"ng the partners, or an independent con
troll by each partner over portion; both OF
which are at variance with all common cXpe-
rlence and observation.
We therefore conclude that the whole
property should have been designated as be
ING III the district where {. PARTON of it was
actually >ItuatcdwhGrc the partnership bu,l-
ness was carried On.and where a majority OF
the partners resided But it is insisted that
ii the defendants have incurred a liability. it
i not 10 these plaintiffs, but to Joseph =
Fairbanks alone. III as much as his indivniu-
al property was d>traincd and sold TO satisfy
: the tax. To this objection, however, we think
the case di,clo>c> a satisfactory answer. Had
the taking and sale of the property been
wrongful, by reason OF positive ilIc.aiIty III
the tax: he alone could have SUSTAINED an az,
ton for the trc>pa>s or tort; Solikcwisc had
the taking or sale been rendered tortous b,
illegalIty in the collectors proceedings. II
short, any action founded on the seizure aud
sale, as the immediate cause OF artIcn mus
! have been prosecuted by Joseph =. Fairbanks
as sole plaintiff. But the list made 10y ,hc>'
defendants became the basis on which tn,
committee and collector OF the district wer,
legally authorized to az, and the rcyuIarit!
: 81 Their dongS is not questioned. C0n>c
qucntIv the seizure and safe OF ti.. property
, were not wrongful and, of themselves con>tl
tu'cd no LEGAL injury The only remedy
therefore to which Joseph p. Fairbanks c"uI'
clam to be entitled would be an action lik,
4 the present. founded on the illegal act OF til,
defendants in dividing the partnership list.
, But 1t would seem that if any injury resulted
= from that act. it must tc an injury to til,
D partners collectively. and not simply to an,
. one member of the firm. And hat such wa
! IN TACT the case provided any injury has beer
occa>loned, Is sufficiently manifest. Eacl
partner being holden BY express statut" t"i
= the whole of a Joint tax against the firm, i
i follows that if one rartnrr Statistic, such a tax
. whether lv voluntary oavment. or bv collrc
ton legally enforced AGAINST him. the firm
: becomes at once bound to reimburse him. Ii,
u has pad ,hyir d, bt in obedience to the law
It he reimbursement D; .i3zch p. FaIrbank
: by the plaintiffs i not, therefore, 70 be deem
:, ed an DELICIOUS and merely voluntary act. la
u as the performance OF LEGAL oh!i..aton. IN,
: tn" injury il any. for which the, have brouuh
: their action. thus became con>nmmatcd As al
r injury 10 them We have no orraSion to en-
qnire whether Joseph F. Fairbanks coul,
, have sued alone before he was reimbursed
II since We are satisfied that he couil not after
t 1t remains to enquire. whether the cas-,
:. shows any such evident damage and iniur,
to have accrued to the plaintiffs, As ncccsSa
rily to render the Judgment against them il
r the Court below erroneous. No conp.aint i
:. made as to the aggregate sum at which thu
g personal estate OF the plaintiff, was set in tn,
to taxation in the wrong school district. Anc
the case furnishes no test hv which to deter
I mine whether anv iniurv was th.r.I,v ,,ro
:. duccd except the. comn,rat;v. r,t. ot tax,
6 ton in the two districts But that was ? fri
tie less in district No. two than in No. one
: 1t would seem. therefore tba, n. ,Ia;n.;a,
S rather gained than lost. BY the wronnfn, 10
cation which the listers ASSIGNED 10 tho tor
=. thousand dollars of personal nro,,ertv TIA,
pears, indeed. that. after tine two districts Ia,
Voted their respective taxes. and the sam,
, had been assessed. the sum set to III. plain
: tiis in the second district was added 70 fl,