, 1866-12-29

pisInt thows Ma ,he oomplaIpanrs tonlcile Wa !
In HcsschesseE County hn Aoust wa therce aud
hta resadcnce eas IN the eity OF Now York for tho
10 ihe definition oi rcs.denee bY Webster. lc1i:
cognpher Of acknowledged authority, and hc de-
anes It to be 'sshe dwelling u ptacc for sons
buslnesa Of other pu1poees" 1he rereuu. l.w u
New losl ln this regard Is tic same In substance
The e.se OF Douglas -, 7ho Mayor, &c. Of
New York, Duer, ITO. L. 10 the same etr=ct-
Douear. II 1851. and loF eeseral Jca1s before, r.
during u winter aad sprirc; and At bis copu.y
summer asa ass@a Il r. e. wIa:es q 1870, he
an1al rsta:c. and in he eumne. vas assessed Tor
: sini!as " ia Flashing; wsicn he paid. ne
lled bill 70 tcstlalu itA collection. Tue Cou:t
hela that whether ihe domlcile Of Douglas was or
va. rot ct Finishing, he wHs resident OF The clty
the IA for ;he esty assessed ana his oili was
eal IL p1inepls with ihst 81 nsa.sels sase Lsadf
sc found. was il neees:at3 to cite them
Thr apprlice's counsel contends that The tesu-
monJ dosa not thoT that the appellee had any In
Sut il, bis doaicil vas B.ih Il III plsee oaiy
could be e1cEcl.e the privilege Of = citizen b
he ia~ ne paee s5 .
| " alone upon the ground Of citizenship: He
<o contends tpat the term! rta1dfnt and inkAb-
| iant are synonymous. referring to 2 Ecnts' Com.
SIG, 10th cdiuon. That edition is not wttiio our
| REACH but d1liecnt search Of prior editors OF
that volume ha. tailed to show q .hia doctFne:
ch. j., II eoanen.lns Or hat ease IN F.ost 4 Il
doubled thls position il strictly accurate, q TIC
latter "1nhabltaut" implies 4 more n1ed and
permanent abode than tie former, aud frequenly
Jfi,dtt could lot cislr1 or BE- subject TO-" In this
view O. thet Chief Justice we 3cFora. ewing II
hs pree,ssaes ,s Greg III ,he a,a dsnlaon Of Judge
Penelope, Biuney. so1. and ei:ed BY appellee's
counsel. There is 4 marked difference in the
g1oTins ont Of .hese rs.peetite rIsha and duaes
tel Of Wre. ley and tnsolreut debtors In Wcnd.,
TIC fact ct tnhaoitaney. no. or residence. The
case IN Wend.. 1so. Is The same ease Of Wreg'ey,
ease q oR2s tas 81 r. Ross Loeu.e
ro,tsr Itch planter Of Gcoiias, Vas IL he haei,
Tssis e 5s e
which be resided nvc or stx months In each year
eu,ns thG ssk se,son II GfsGg, ne "
isT Of iiiy cents I'D thirdiy: ior sseaoo6 .
Camden = AmboY Ra'lroad oonds owned BY him
: New Jersey, md .he Court ssi
81 II Va. zee Sas 1ss
innebltant, he wss NOT liable 70 4 poll ta1--ths
os ~ a. 81 Das
! monthr. while :bo parties douieIl IL elsewhere
= = and. while hc hss no iate.ion NJ 81 becoming
G as qa not 5
g . this purpoee, whether he Dade hls temposar
. 1etiasnss IN sis eno dwelling. Win hls doaesu
; establishment and retsnuc aoout hin, or as met
> / lotger Ia The house Of another.
: As 10 tho rntlroad bonds. tho turning point M
the came The Court ssid the tavennc act apple
l. only to ihe inhab.tanta OF The state and that Il
act Inust be limited IN it, operation excluaivey
!. property owned OF Inhabitants Of the State. II
!. Chief Justice, from whose opinion The counsel Il
dent,' en1 properly, too. because ths atatute b,
r exclusive reference 70 1ntabltsnts. The 9th
caeca cited are not on the point Of residence,
esse Ta d 81 n e2 s7R n Fsa v ae
noafSsiesat ri u. @ - s9sjsf M e d - ,pos.
4 hitnceota makes no provision for ts1iaE eredt
~ or MONEYS under the control OF An agcnt a. do'
:. eised upon ,hc ovnerr rsridlng IN The district.
=, ference be.eeen shls esse aaJ that of Fres, '
=. Ss Scw fors, k sradf:, =. sad douglas = vs. 81 Il
"a Mayor. ctG.. Duer, 40. nsrr The 6omicil
Ct ,as s =! IN e ss
the county Of Iazewelt, In thia state ore-.hisd
=. ~ the year. BIS only business WAS carried on
= p he consdesad Is re,.dine q baih, In New Yol
n | In conformity Of the definition given Of
=. term residence. thu. Of The defendant IS ssss
=: 1ieGcd. There YVES ectled d1rd abode Ut Pes
- - IN intention maulte.ted to remain there perr
" nenly. At least for time, los business purpos
w When Al Bath lie resided for time. and 20
IA Pektn when he was Assessed. HA residence At
a. = ss, es9n y, dea i ns sansss
~ up7roaeh nf the hot and rsck.y season. II Is Il
60 60 he had bnt one home Or domict1, bat he had t
= sesidereea, the one Peklu whiist he wa. tho
~ thosc 10 20 to II. ...-
ne anies suppose 1ra and Charles davenport bad be
=. ~ assessed en- thu. property IN New York. n1d tt
sse ssso & = E
~ ~ York on such tsetsi That Is snsHeFea b.
n..sn u people e f.es 9s! ss1 Sof 6
Y, ~ s sei.sor ss+idsns IA iDa cit, oi NV 70
oid ed wns assessed IN rcspect to capi
~ spect 10 chattell on hts Esrm IL New Jersey.
.x M Court held tho aaneesrent was erroneous. 1
A. cite spp1oytnely the case Of Wilkey ".
a., thefc faid . Be The general rule MAT psEso
~ ~ property follows the owners, but naun!ciptl
iT1 ~ porations have no power TO protect property
nn Ss snes e
;a 1ss Of this rule 2 then for ths purposes
rec taxation 10 property actually within The terrific
~ jurisdiction. ih.. property Assessed, - vel
~ ~ The defendant were In ibis cateEot}. The cas
~ ~ point, and eusta!ns The game haro tai
II T. p,s,!on Vas resident y reEia when sssss'
, y. oi the Circuit couIt enjoinin0 tho COLLECTION
~ ~ tho saIes against him WAS erroneous, ana 1ns
bo; reversed and decree entered tisallowias the