Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-04-12
DISTRICT COURT DECISION.
The County In which the Tax ON
Cattle In Payable.


Cattle In Payable.
In the District Court of the Sixth Judicial
District Of the State of Nevada, in and
for Eureka County.-F. Barnes, plain
tiff, VS.. w. W. woodberry, defendant.
Notwithstanding several specifications
Of especial grounds" l can only regard
the demurrer interposed to the complaint
as being based upon the general ground"
The complaint sets forth the facts that
defendant was the Assessor of White Pine
County, Nevada, during 1881; that LOO
head of plaintiffs cattle were assessed by
defendant in that county during that year;
that during 1880 and 1881 plaintiff resided
in Eureka County, Nevada; that said cat
tie, with others owned by plaintiff, were
herded on a tract Of land owned by him
in Eureka County during each Winter, and
at all times were managed and controlled
from his said land in Eureka County,
which he declares is the "home ranch" Of
said cattle; that having no real estate in
White Pine County, defendant compelled
plaintiff to pay to him (defendant) $3.50
as taxes assessed against said cattle for
White Pine County, in order to prevent
defendant from selling them.
1t is further alleged, but is probably i'm
material, that at the time said cattle were
assessed in White Pine County they had
been assessed by the Assessor of Eureka
County, presumably in consequence of the
plaintiff having given them in to the latter
Assessor in plaintiffs list Of property tax
able in Eureka County for 1881.
1t is admitted that between April and
Nov. 1, 1881, these cattle were grazing at
will upon the public domain in White Pine
County.
The only question which can arise in
this case at this time is presented by the
demurrer, viz: Were these cattle, under
such q state OF facts as has been given,
subject to taxation in White Pine County ?
l think not. Not any more so than if they
had been grazed each day during the year
in White Pine and had been returned each
night to their ''home ranch in Eureka.
Not any more SO than if they had been
brought from Utah, and, being destined
for plaintiffs home in Eureka, had re-
manned any reasonable length Of time in
White Pine to recruit during their passage
through that county; nor any more SO
from the fact that they grazed at will there
for seven months during the year, than il
they had been passing leisurely through
that or half a dozen other counties in this
State from plaintiffs ranch in Eureka to
some distant market in another county or
beyond this State.
l do not doubt, however, that while
plaintiff may have resided in, or in addi-
ton, owned large landed interests in Eu-
reka, yet had always, or even during the
entire year, perhaps, kept and herded
these cattle in White Pine County, and
managed and controlled them exclusively
in that county, but that they would have
been legally taxable there. Such is not
the case.
The question practically involved in this
case seems to nave been passed upon by
the Supreme Court of this State in the
case of Conley vs.. Chedic, 7, Nevada Re-
ports 34I, wherein the Court says
1.-The statute requires or authorizes the
assessment of all property in the county
during a certain time in each year.
Now, what property is to be understood
as being in the county? Can it be said
that such as is simply passing through it
for the purposes of market elsewhere, or is
destined for some other county in
the State, is property in the county
for the purposes of taxation? Certain
ly not. To constitute it property for that
purpose in any particular county it must
be in such a situation as to make it q part
Of the wealth of that county; it must be-
long in it; must be incorporated with the
other property of the county"
1t cannot be said that these cattle be-
longed in White Pine County, or that
they were incorporated with the other
property of the county" but, on the con-
trary, that they belonged" in Eureka
County and ranged alone unincorposatsd
"with the other property Of that county"
and aopotittvf tod No tF mart ~ thu maalth IF
the County of White Pine.
The condition of the State is snch that
stock grazing in large herds must neces-
sarily often change their location, either
on account of the scarcity of heritage at all
seasons or owing to the difficulty of OBJ
tanning it during the Winter season in
places where feed in the summer may be
abundant. This fact lends force to the
rule, applying it to stock in this State,
that sin general personal property fol-
lows the person Of the owner" and in all
such instances. as in the case ct bar, must
be confined to the person Of the owner"
or great confusion and hardship will ensue.
This view is also sustained in People vs..
whortenly, 3S CAL, 466; People VS.. Niles
ct al, So CAL. 2S2; Oakland VS.. Whipple,
80 Cal, ia; Hayes vs. Pacific M. s. Co.,
II How'd, 597.
1t is, therefore, ordered, that the de-
murrer be overruled and defendant given
five days in which to answer.
HENRY RIvEs, District judge.