The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-08
la w INTELLIGENCE.
r,rnrprcrINc nrc1c1o>r

ded by Court Appeals reference of
the City of Baltimore to tax for Municipal purposes
sells duly registered in and sailing out of the port of Bal
tmore owned by bona de and actual residents of the
county who have their places of business in the city
The argued before full court and the following
opinion adverse the power Of the City to such pro-
perty was delivered by Chief Justice LIE Grand,
perior Court for Baltimore City the following state
ment of facts:
fde and actual resident of Baltimore county, but having
his place of business merchant in the CITY, and that
this action is instituted to from him the of
five hundred and five dollars being the duly
'ed in the City of Baltimore City taxes the ship
Anne Hooper, the property of defendant, registered in
the Custom House at said City, and sailing port
of Baltimore 1t is agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to
the said of money and costs and that the
Court shall give Judgment therefor provided the Court
shall be of opinion that the said ship lawfully be
valued to the said defendant for the purpose City
ton in the City Of Baltimore and that he may lawfully
outstanding his residence in Baltimore county 1t is
further agreed that the plaintiff is entitled
and that the Court shall render judgment for the defend
ant with costs provided the Court shall be of opinion
that the said ship should be valued the defendant and
that he should be taxed hereupon in the county where
he resides. 1t is agreed that either party may have
appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court
said Court may make differences of fact in discretion
the facts herein stated 1t is further agreed
Court of Appeals may, in of appeal render such
Judgment this statement and such differences they
may deem according to law"
The question presented by this statement of facts is
simply this Is vessel owned under the circumstances
detailed liable to pay taxes, for municipal purposes,
city that such liability exists, because of the provisions
of the act of 1884, CHI 49, g. and those of the of
1852 CHI 337 The words of the latter, far this
question they the in the former
act-are follows "Al property owned by residents of
this State and not permanently located elsewhere within the
State shall be assessed to the owner in the county city
where he she may reside" 1t is urged that notwith
standing the of the ship Anne Hooper sis bona
fde and actual resident of Baltimore county, she is liable
taxation for city purposes because she is registered in
the Custom House at said city, and is sailing out of the
port of Baltimore and because she is permanently To-
limits of
Baltimore county, the domcil of the 1t the
union of all these circumstances and not any in
particular it was commended she liable to city taxa
ton First then to the effect of her registration at the
Custom House in Baltimore We attach-and also
portance this fact Under the existing laws of Con-
gress long Mr. Hooper owns the vessel and retains
than House in Baltimore city
By the Act of Congress Of the I'd of March, 1799 entitled
and tonnage it is provided that in the State of Mary
land there shall be ten DISTRICTS and that 1.-THE district
of Baltimore shall include Paapsco River Turkey Point
Spesuta Island and all the waters and shores the
west side of Chesapeake Bay from the mouth of Magohy
River, which shall not be included in the districts Of
Havre de Grace and Collector Naval Officer and Sur
veyor the district shall be appointed to reside at Bat
which shall be the sole port of entry by
Act of Congress of December 31st 1892 provided that
ship vessel to be thereafter registered sha
be registered by the Collector of the district in which
shall be comprehended the port which ship
sci shall belong at the time of her registration which port
shall be deemed to be that, at which the
owner if there be but if than one the hus
Danu OF actnR managing owner OF such ship
sell resides and the of the said ship vessel and
of the port to which she shall belong shall be painted
her stern" Under these Acts of Congress clear
that the Anne Hooper could only have been registered
at the Custom House in Baltimore consequence
of such registration made belong to that port but
the district of which that the port as is papabe from
the Language of Congress- is not confined to the limits OF
the city.
The circumstances principally relied upon by the city
the fact of sailing out Of the port of Baltimore and
that she permanently located" elsewhere than the
place of residence of the owner IT, in sense
said in the of Hays The Pacific Mall Steamship
Company, II Ho,UardS S. C. Rep $685. vessel engaged
in foreign trade have domic it be regarded
present instance may extend over much larger terri
tory than the limits of the city, and it would therefore,
be just proper for Baltimore county Anne Arundel
county as for the city of Baltimore to impose tax for
municipal purposes for all of one and part other
is embraced within the district of which city Balti
is the port of entry. IT, therefore, there was no
other consideration affecting the case, the city would
clearly have right to tax she being better condi
ton than other portions of the registration district But
the words of the Act Of 1852 denied nor was
it, that, general principle, all personal property un
without location, other than the residence its owner
Wherever he or she reside there is by operation of
law located the property In this particular rule
ing different from that applicable to realty.
In the one case the domic of the determines the
law whilst in the other the law of the si prevails
So universal is the recognition of this distinction
be scarcely necessary cite authorities in its sup
port 1t is the law Of nations. Lord Loughborough in
Sill Us. W0rswick H. b. 800 has said at is a clear
proposition not only of the law of England hut of
country in the world where has the semblance of
science, that personal property has locality The
meaning OF that is not that personal property has
visible locality but that it is subject that law which
the person of the both with respect the
disposition of it, and with respect the transmission
either by succession or by the act of the party follows
the law of the person. The in any country may
dispose of his personal property If he dies is the
law Of the country in which the property is but the law
of the country of which he subject that will regu
late the succession" And Lord Chief Justice Abbott
said: personal property has no locality And even
iS tac tho
England gives way to the law Of the foreign country
but that it is part Of the law of England that
personal property should be distributed according to
the JuS domicitit." Justice Story, after treating
of the history of this rule, in section 379 of his
work on the conflict of laws, says 'If the law rel site
were generally to prevail in regard to moveables would
be utterly impossible for the many cases. know
in what manner to dispose of them during his fe
distribute them at his DEATH not only from the
tainty Of their situation in the transit and from differ
en places but from the mpracticabty of knowing with
minute accuracy the law of transfer" &c. Again sany
change of place future time might defeat the best
considered will any sale donation might be
imperative the of the parties of the law
OF the actual Sits at the time of their These
be serious evils pervadng the whole community and
equally affecting the subjects and interests of all civilized
merce for their revenues their power and their glory
mischief would be incaculable general utili
ty therefore, must have first suggested the doctrine and
as soon as it was promulgated it could not fail
mend itself to all nations by its simplicity its convenience
and its enlarged policy These references abundant
y sufficient to show the rule and its policy They might
be multiplied to almost any extent.
Although the general rule is have stated it to be-
yet is perfectly competent sovereign authority to
abolish or modify it, and the question here is has it been
modified to bring this vessel within the taxing power
of the corporation of Baltimore The of the act
are All property owned by residents of this State
not permanently located elsewhere within the State shall
be assessed to the in the county where he
may reside" Apart from the general principle which
have adverted be very properly doubted whether
vessel built for and actually employed in foreign trade
can be said to be 'permaney located anywhere. The
idea of its permanent location at with very pur
poses OF its creation Vessels are not constructed to rot
at the wharf Dock but to carry from place to place
CARGO their very necessarily implies ranson-the
absence of permanency Of location Besides under
act OF Assembly, to take personal of the
eral rule far taxation is concerned must per
located elsewhere ihin the State other than
within the county city Of the residence of its
The Ship in this clearly is not permanently located
'loithin thiS State" Her mission is on the seas
The desire on the part of the Taxpayers of city, to
subject the personal property of residents who trans
act their business within its limits to proportonate
share of its burdens far from unreasonable but this
desire can not be graed unless the Legislative will al
lows it, and this permission not to be gathered
lecture but from the plain and nnequivocal language
which it should be expressed In D,carris on Statutes It
sad at page 695, las rule of exposition
to be construed in reference to the principles the
mon law for it is not TO be presumed that the Legsla
ture intended to make innovation upon the common
law further than the absolutely required The law
rather infers that the Act did not intend make any al
teration other than what is specified and besides has
been plainly pronounced" If the Legislature hereafter
should deem it wise and just subject property held
the vessel in to city taxation it adopt the
policy of New York and Massachusetts, but until it
do so in plain and unmisakabe terms the Courts must
adhere to the long established doctrine
Being of opinion that the vessel Anne Hooper not
liable to city taxation, under the authority given
by the stated the judgment of the
court below, and enter judgment for the appellant with
costs.
s. T. Wallis and A. S. Ridgely for appellant, G. Dulany
md H. K. Dulany for appellee.
There was no business transacted in any of the City