The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1884-03-11


manner :
OFFICE OF STATE AUDITOR,
CITY OF JEFFERspS,
March Sd. 1884.
Charles L. Gollibsrt, ESQ, assessor Of Vernon
County, Mo.
DEAR SIR Il am in receipt of your let
ter OF the both OF Feb, relating TO the as
sessment OF certain personal property owned
by citizens of Vernon county, but which il
located in the territory of New Mexico.
In the first instance you ask whether the
StOnewall Cattle company, corporation
organized in Vernon county, aud whose
articles Of association are recorded there
should be assessed in Vernon county with
cattle which the company own In New
Mexico.
Secondly, whether Messrs. Ewing and
Stone, both of whom are citizens OF Vernon
county, should be assessed with cattle also
owned by them in New Mexico.
Property owned by manufacturing COM
panies and other corporations
mentioned in article eight, chapter 81,
revised statutes, is assessed and taxed a.
the property of individuals (See section
6692, K. 81 Consequently, the re is but
one question involved IN your inquiry, and
that Is, whether the cattle referred TO
should be assessed In Vernon county? In
the case Of the CITY of ST. Louis vs.. Wig
gins Ferry company, 40 Mo-, p. $50, the
court affirms the doctrine that personal
property Of a resident situated beyond the
limits of a state, is without It's jurisdiction
and cannot be assessed for taxation In this
state.
1.
each person listing property To subscribe
to an oath, the conclusion OF which is 10
The following language: Il do solemnly
swear Tor affirm that have not sent or
taken, or caused to be sent or taken, any
property, money or bills, bonds or notes,
or other securit &c or evidence of debt, out
of this state 10 avoid taxation, SO help me
God"
Commenting upon this statutory provis-
ion, Judge Napron, in SO Mo-, p. 454. has
this TO say 4: docs not this oath necessa-
rily imply that when such property has
been sent out of this state for bona 6de
purposes, and not TO avoid taxation. ii is
exempt? Why require the oath if it is
equally subject 10 taIatiOn whether sent
out of this state in good faith or not Our
legislature seems to have been of the opin
ion that the adoption of the rule declared
in Taylor VS.. ST. Louis, AZ Mo-, p. 599,
would not operate injuriously on the rev.
enue, believing, doubtless, that the proper
ty of capitalists in this state, whose domi-
Gle was abroad, will greatly exceed that of
our own citizens, the sItus of which was IN
good faith in other states"
In the case of Taylor VS.. St. Louis coun-
ty court (47 Mo, p. 59i) it il held that the
actual situs of personal property,
and not the domicile OF its own
er, de,elmines under the law
of what state it shall be taxed. Judge
Bliss expresses the opinion of the court on
this point as follows: THAT the situs OF
personal property is the dcmicile of the
owner, is a fiction, though color is given 10
lis truth by The law in relation to the dis
of personal estates. If citiz-n
and resident of ST. Louis owns farm in
no one pretends that the farm has
any different location than if the owner
lived upon il. But how with the cattle In
its fields and stables and the corn In its
Ga what principle can they be
said to belong to Missouri so long as they
are upon the farm? There is this differ.
erce They can be moved to Missouri,
while the farm cannot, but until removed
heir situs is the farm they help 10 swell
The wealth OF the locality: they are pro.
ected by It's laws, and shou ID be subject To
ito burdens"
1t NAV be asserted that section 6662, as
amended in 1881, has not been judicially
and therefore governs In the
natter of assessing this properly. Except
rs 10 the assessment of notes, bonds and
Ither evidences OF debt, the amendment of
1881 did not change The law as enacted in
1877, which will be seen by Ihe following
of the sections:
Section 6662, as enacted in lS77.-"All
personal property, of whatsoever nature
and character, situate in a county other
han the one In which the owner resides,
shall be assessed in the county where the
owner resides, and the owner in listing il
hall specifically state in what county il is
Iituate."
Section 1862, as amended in 1SSl-"All
personal property, of whatsoever nature
and character, situate in a county other
han the one in which the owner resides,
and all notes, bonds and other evidences of
lebt made taxable by the laws OF this state,
held In any state or territory other than
hat in which the owner resides, shall be
assessed in the county where the owner re-
ides, and the owner in listing, shall specifi-
ally state in what county, state or terri
DRY it is situate or held"
From the foregoing, conclude that if
he cattle owned by The Stonewall Cattle
company, and by Messrs. Ewing & Stone,
we're beyond the jurisdiction of this state
IN the first day Of June, 1883, and were
lot taken or sent to New Mexico to avoid
sxation, they are not subject TO assess
nent and taxation in Vernon county.
Your obedient servant,
JOHN WALKER,
State Auditor.