Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-07-02
THE TAX DEFECTIVE.
Only a Minor Part of Assessment on
0ut-of-TOwn Mills Good.
THE HARTMAN STEEL CO.'sAPPEAL
Proves Largely Successful, and an Injune-
tiOn Issues.
OTHER NEWS FROM THE LEGAL FIELD

The business tax contest between the
Hartman Steel Company and the city was
decided by Judge Slagle yesterday. The
suit was test case, and it affected the mat
ter of levying business tax On the large
coal and coke firms and other business con-
Germs having branch Office in the city and
their works elsewhere. The suit was to re-
strain the city of Pittsburg and ". r. Ford.
Delinquent Tax Collector, from collecting the
business tax levied on the Hartman Steel Com
pany. The company has its works and main
ONCE at Beaver Falls and n branch office here.
II was taxed on the business transacted on the
grounds that the contracts were made here;
therefore that the business was transacted
here. Three modes Of fulfilling these contracts
were referred to in the bill. On two questions
the Hartman Steel Company win their point,
and on the other the City Assessors are sus-
tained. The case is fully given in the opinion
handed down by Judge Slagle:
1t is alleged in the bill that the company is or
Ranized under the act of 1874 having its manufao-
tory and principal office at Beaver Falls, but hav-
Ing at Pittsburg branch ONCE, at which some OF
It's business is transacted, but have no warehouse
place for storage of goods in said city and that
transactions.as 10 the sale.of goods were made at
Pittsburg as follows:
First--Goods manufactured at Beaver Falls. sold
them on board cars at Beaver Falls, consigned to
them at Pittsburg.
THE CLASS THAT GOES.
second-Goods manufactured at Beaver Falls,
Eod to customers living in Pittsburg and delivered
TO them at the railroad depot in Pittsburg, con-
tracts being made outside the city,
Third-Goods sold TO customers living outside
Of the city of Pittsburg and delivered to them at
Beaver Falls In the first and third cases the con-
tracts were made in the city OF Pittsburg and in
all cases on credit and three-fourths of the pur-
collected by drats credited to the accounts of the
Pittsburg Office. Upon all these transactions the
city levied a tax and threatens to collect the same
The plaintiffs allege that the city has no legal
authority TO levy and collect said taxes and asks
that il be restrained. All the facts are admitted
by the answer, the only denial of the allegations
of the bill being TO the power of the city to levy
and collect the tax and as to the 1rrepal able IN
The only authority to which we are referred is
contained in the of March 2, 1886, Sec. which
provides that the Councils of the city of Pitts
burg shall be and are hereby authorized to levy
merce sold in the said city including sales at
auction or otherwise, an annual tax not exceed
There is no question as tn the power Of the Leg
70 antn9riSe snen iaTaon, ano ths s so,S
upon the proper construction OF tine act and It's
The third class raises the questions involved |
clearly and distinctly: The goods mentioned |
though the contracts for sale were made there
they were executed outside its limits by delivery
tended BY plaintiffs that in order to subject goods
70 taxation, the goods themselves must not only |
there; while the defendants claim that Il is sum-
Client that the sale be made within the city, and
suficient to pass title between parties 1t will be
observed that the act does not impose tax upon |
posed upon all goods, but only upon those sold.
The natural construction of the act named,
in the jurisdictisn Of the CITY and sold there /.
may well be doubted whether the Legislature
corporatIon SI % To Impose 20 taR upon persoPsi
property Of a tangible character not within its
sales. Irrespective of the location of the property
appropriate language could have been employed
of such language. it is not to be presumed that the
Iegislature intended to exercise such doubtful
indicated tax upbn sales it still would be re-
garded as q tax uDon the property itself.
IMPOSSIBLE TO TAX IT
1t has frequently been held that a tax upon sales
license to sell is in effect taS apon the articles
sold. reference, Walton VS. Missouri, I2 wheat |
GA; Abney VS. California, q Howe, I6o; Cook vs. |
Pennsylvania. 81, Unitec states, $685. II seems |
clear. therefore. tina: property which has never |
been within the ci': limits is not taxable under |
the act of MaFcS T. 1876, merely because the con-
tract Of SAL was made there. This is in accord |
with the decision of this court in Ptts5urg VS. |
Bidw,- = S7z, December T., lsSs, upon subsfan- |
ti.cy similar state of facts,
= In the first class the goods were brought within
The city. and the contract Of sale was made there
falls. As before stated, in order to subject the |
property to tax under the act of l4d the property
must not only be within the city, but the sale |
must be made there.
IL Is true, argued by defendants counsel. that
. sale may transfer the title to property as be-
tween the parties, without actual delivery. As
between vendor and vendee. it is specification and
not delivery that is necessary to tie yesting of
little lWinslow, Lanier Co. VS. Leonard, "a p. ST.
10. But in this case, the delivery being made
outside the city, the specifications were necessa-
r1ly there also. In Shuin VS. Pittsburg, @ pa. st.
4o6, the Court held that this act clearly covers
goods in the warehouse OF the defendants sold by
them, though the orders were taken and contracts
made by agents outside the city.
. In Savbracht VS. Comm, So page statute 49,
the court says the place of sale is the point at
which goods ordered are set apart and delivered
70 the purchaser or to the common carrier, who
for the purpose Of delivery represent him. De-
livery either actual or constructive is an essen
tlal ingredient in a sale of personal property. |
Same case: Until this took place, he had only |
right of action to recover for a breach of con-
tract Dorchester Oleo and Oil Company VS. |
Hughey, 81 page. statute 90. 1t is clear, there
fore, that the sales in these cases must be held 30
have been made in Beaver county, and that title
had passed out Of plaintiffs before they were
brought into the city of Pittsburg, and they are
The same reas oning, applied 10 the second class |
OF sales as clearly shows that they are not proper
81 ubjects of taxation by the city OF Plttsburg. |
ghe contracts Of sales were made In Beaver ooun-
". but they were executed by delivery the city,
yhey remain the property OF plaintiffs until deliv-
cred and come within the term of the act-'goods
sold'' there. A decree will be issued restraining
the collection OF taxes upon the nrst and third
classes.