New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-04-05


provide Rev sa. .,h 3D. sSa s9 that every per,SSn
usde, for all personal property owned by hn
&c and a. sub require the to .e, down the
full value s the taxable personal property owned by snch
person. taxable nhabitsnt ssr dsduetns the Just debts
The Of these provisions are sufficiently broad include
goods and chae OWNED by resden, liable % srson which
shsn sI y @ IN bD.pe. sed on on. Of The
well goods hael' and capital Owned and aed oy him mere,
the provi.ions Of the statutes es1s The e.'
and collection of first enseed aud al the
II, intention Of the Leatue 70 exempt from taxation
personal property Of resident II this State for the reason that
time levied such property oeyopd ne
boundaries of the State bet that the law In hi repec remains
the it before the Revised Statutes weI enscted
But conceded that the Iaaor ~cs net Liable 70 90
taxed In New York for goods AID clsttes owned BY him.
Shsn '1e Wa MADE were 10 Ids not
thlnE which before COmmi'
The made By the re'Or tina. no had not in his
os sacneds ya BIT S q
properly exempt from taxation hed By him in NewYorh
dollar and that be had other personal property poe.sior
eIcsp, pitsl employed IN hi, bushes, IN
the relator had taxable property 70 the City Of New
YORK and invested copaiiner'hp m Of which he
sSsf sSs ss @ .n Sr s'
had Ohsr deb Or sOy oni ss ss%' s M, opinion
would untoubtedy be liable taxation In upon tho
%s s 81 ss h m should spp
in reduction Of the amount Of capital and othef o.
Ard II the business Of the r,or In Newoesn. an ind
10 md for the carr that business think the same rule
sPpy amour, of his csP and G.ae PIpets
amount Indebtedness rather thsp that s%onIt be &c
o oSssin-d by OF coneeea ~its .c
All the were within the roors own tnowledse and
made .uh statement them clearly and necessarily to emit
e biz &c relief demanded thin. he Ia, n1 S 6inS So and
my opinion the decision OF the Commissioner should De
affirmed, with costa
sufHskCAsD dissenting Assuming that III, case f;i.y
jersey f. ispee;,ly plain that the fiction Of law
owner ha, ndthiSs Whatever 90 with that question
The QUESTION bst%een the .oyef sn and the suoecs Or cur
heard before OF fiction Of law being applicable 10 any 'uch
The question IA no, ono Of power iudictiOn but Of con-
DO MOI doubt the power Of the Legislature Of this state to
State. or coaStrir-n wofd their in re.
pe Of .uea property OF because my own 'Och properly OF
Tbs Lessure Of ths i,e undsr Cousu.lop has ju.
diciSn over perpons property within &, but nobe over
persons or property withou IT, AMI in another independent
State or Territory eIcep, sucb conceded ny such other
t sss to P'opsy in Iooau, Or Jersey q
provision or res;Icn ei'hsE ~ TIE g..en ., MY
eEted aIsn Of 1'sa IN rfgec OF Pi b Se % s ,ng
.wsy. has had the power aud reason os tstng resi-
dents respect Of real property as 4n' o. .o e4
10 lar either or real w peIty al this State ard In
another state the, fiction Of law can briR personal prop
and ageys has had power persons witoi1 this State in
respect o. because il-y owned either real Of personal prop
have ,ad tic question this sDOt Of p'wer,
Lid he I rtre by the laws under which the Relstor
taxed intend to tax persons or property n person. te1 re
tar TO- IA esae, poll caP,on, or nsos @ o
property the State bu. consiiuiiona objection
20 81. ,,h atIf he hf power I o. ever attended to
tai, property IN Ioui,i.na or New-Jerfey. a.,
taxes for pesonAl property IN h ee we lorn
OF tho ,s whether the property or On ite person In the 10
spec + The property quite m Si. O om 1ns sa
ia Of ccuolng importance a. bearing on the question o. In
ise are certainly provisions forms Of expression n some
Of he gung the peson and collection Of taxes
their good. and ;s. IN another State bat there are other
Proyon hich appear to be Ten Win 81 .Gh
In making e asessuent roll .eeIiapny TIE VsGe o. He
hoald tho property IN Ra.a California
No mater That tbs practice may be- think toe theory OF these
personal property they should pa, It down At guess In
oud aSes large that the patty would be Obliged TO
Ibe Revised Statute, have title declaring sha property shall
be liable Aton. II declares that all laDds md ali personal
within This State L be 80 lI,br subject to certain ex
emP,ons a ard specified. ...,,or =, ,h.,,,,.
taxation previously expressed declaration The tiue.
t 81 ~ i'.y % FIFTH Il minister
To ;ssS Of y. w0 s s.,us s SaI doe. t&a a
Of th~m in previous statutes OF 1901 Of 1913 d
Property aud not persons why should they does'e s,
properly within tho State They must be Presumed to have
properly within the state only for their Jurisdiction Was
thin hi. state Belonging residents could be taxed
prior 1855 sm inclined to think that under the
provisions revised statutes, ell persons property IN this
State lawfully In the possession OF any resident eAee INA. ek
smns;ion tie 10 Barb and T. d. smith, cited on
the argument , ,,,
Jersey liable taxed in tho. st,es although he
may beabe 10 be taxed for them ths state Is 4 70 De pre-
Tpon he whole avn inclined think ha. the Commits.
ons erred In this case In determining not to reduce the rsia
do intend speak with confidence, FOR other pressing
on OF the question which ia Importance and dcuies would
ana confident that the Commits ard my learned
ca considering the question: have given 70 me maxim OF
. mace I'd am &c which the nature OF the
que',icn does not warrant lave said what have, With
he yw showing his than with the expectation of throwing
much lsht the reslque,'ion In the case.
tho legislature ended 70 tax person. III respect Of their
goods aud chaeis Of iii, State there I. oecssca in this
reortiug this fiction Of lsw II the Legislature in
can BRIG tho goods and eises So S ste or
the Law into another state where the goods and chaeh
II the REALTORS personal property In Louisiana had sed Of
slaves them would have presented difficulties and ques
dy necessary say If the relstO properly bad
consisted OF dbs due on account, conraot note 1c that
wona have been ts2eble here matter where his debtors
sided without the aid o this fiction Of law
LowTey for Telator H. H. Anderson. for respon
dent.
-
COURT OF APPEALS-APRIL 4.-Before all the Justices.
FRENCH BANKRUPT PROCEEDINGS.
In re attachment ag the estate Of Edwa ard and Augusta Bonade
Prior to 1851, the Donates were engaged In busi-
nss az France where they resided They had consider
se prSPs n hs S ADD o'bs1 d g obs
this city applied the Court Of Common Ple.s for an attach
against the these resident debtors In Oco
Der 1893 appointed collect the debts owing to-
and take charge Of the assets OF the firm They collected
A2 ich 81 by attachment, ard which they
held ready distribute among the creditors The claims