The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-07-24
NOTHING LEFT TO DECIDE
THE SUPREME COUR SETTLES THE
GROUND RENT CASE

The D scision Uneuimousa1d Delivered
by Judge Bleckley-lbe Position of
the City and dge Falligant's Opin-
ion Sustained in mphatic Language.
The Official Report Of the Decision.
The official report of the supreme courts
decision in what is commonly known as the
ground rent case was received yesterday
by City Attorney Adams, and is published
in full below.
1t will be recollected that after certain
test executions were issued by the city
petition was filed by ex-Alderman David
Wells and others to the superior court, ask
ing for an INDUCTION against the city upon
the ground that this property was not sub
ject to municipal taxation. After hear
ing Judge Balligant denied the INDUCTION,
holding that the property was subject to
such taxation. A writ of error was taken
by the plaintiffs to the supreme court of the
state, and this court rendered It's decision
last Monday. The decision is unanimous
tine chief justice, instead of dissenting,
having delivered the opinion Of the court.
The position taken by the city, and Judge
Falllgant's opinion, are sustain ed by the SUI
preme court ia the strongest aud most en-
phatic language. 1t would seem that the
question as to the taxation Of this property
could not be decided more fully or COM
pletely. Mr.. Weed was not party to this
case. His case involved the assessment of
Bull street property for the pavement. and
this was decided in favor of the city some
weeks ago.
The city attorney, when asked yesterday
whether there was anything left in the case
f1 = Il Il. 90
1t is not the province Of jury to ovcrrule
the supreme court Of the state on a legal
question"
THE DECISION.
The decision is as follows:
Wells ct al. VS.. mayor and aldermen of the
city of Savannah.
BY the court
/. Real estate In Savannah held by purchase
from the city, the terms of purchase being the
payment or an annual ground rent forever or at
| the election of the purchaser, his heirs, execu-
tors, administrators or assigns, the payment in
full or the stipulated purchase money at any
time, IS taxable by the municipal government
| as the property of the purchaser OF his success
sor in the title.
2. There was no error In denying the iniunc-
ton prayed for to restrain the collection Of the
tax.
BLEcKIEY, Chief Justice.
Some cases task the anxious diligence Of a
court not og their difficulty but their simplicity.
This is one of them. Because the case seemed
too plain for controversy we have had some
apprehension that we might decide it incor-
rectly. impressed always by the ability and
learning, the wide research and earnest ad-
vocacy of the distinguished counsel for the
plaintiffs, we have experienced vague dread
tuat we might stumble over legal obstacles
which, II they exist, q ureacherous darkness
conceals. In order to examine the ground thor
1 oughly we have held up the case for months
read authorities cited and not cited, perused
| books before unknown to U.S. deliberated medi-
| tsted, considered and recousidered. But to the
! last hour we have discovered nothing debatable
| III the controlling question raised for our decis-
ION, frnged though it certainly is with technical
nlcetes or great delioacy aud much interest.
| TO which side the artificial logic of these nice
| ties would incline the scale is immate-ial for
| the solid practical subject of taxation must be
| dealt with on broader principles. The value OF
property consists in its use, and he who owns
| the use forever, though 1t be on condition
subsequent, is the true owner of the
equally OF city lot or of all the land in the
world. Where taxation is ad valorem values
| are the ultimate objects of taxation, and they
to whom the values belong should pay the
| taxes.
| GROUND RENT LAND TAXABLE.
Land sold, or by contract of bargain
| and sale, demised forever, subject to a per-
| petual rent, is taxable as corporal property,
and in private hands the rent also is taxable as
| an 1ncorporeal here3itament. The tax on the
| former is chargeable to the purchaser or per
petual tenant, and on the latter to the owner OF
| the rent. The corporal property in such cases
| is at the direct risk of the purchaser; he alone
sustains the losses of depreciation in value, and
| he alone takes the benefit of appreciation. The
vendor risks only the fixed rent or the fixed
| purchase money and neither of these will ever
| become more or less by anything which may
| happen to the premises. Only this security,
not his property, will be affected thereby. 1t is
to be assumed that the whole contract between
the parties will be observed, not broken, and
| their true relation to the property is to be de-
te1nined on that assumption. Possession of
real estate, attended with an ndefeasabe right
TO occupy in perpetuity, and also with an indie
feasible right to be clothed with the fee upon
the voluntary payment of fixed sum as pur-
| chase money, will constitute the purchaser the
substantial owner OF the property. So long as
MS possession, supplemented with these rights,
continues, he is not mere lessee, but q pur-
chaser admitted into possession on the faith Of
his contract OF purchase. Such were the con-
tracts involved in the present case, and under
them the purchasers have the actual possession
and the use of the premises, with the RI yht to
hold forever, on condition OF paying up the
purchase money whenever they please, and
until that time an annual ground rent due by
quarterly instalments, the amount of which is
liked by contract, and is the equivalent Of in
o s9reST o at tb r mGderaTe rcb rate per
In all essential respects. so far as
liability for taxes is concerned, these purchasers
are In the position of ordinary purchasers in
possession under a bond for title and these last
are chargeable with accruinR taxes on lands SO
held. Bank VS.. Danforth, so Ca, 55. Not au
lota of beneficial ownership in the city lots now
in question abides in the municipality The city
but retained qualified ana wholly unproduc-
tive title security for the purchase money
and until that shall be paid as security also for
the annually accruing compensation under the
name Of ground rents in lieu of interest on that
money. If the municipal government held all
the values in the city as trustee for the owners,
or as security for purchase money, these
values would be none the less taxable for that
reason.
TAXES MUST BE AID vALoREM
The constitution of the state requires
that taxes on property shall be ad vaorem, and
that when any part is taxed, all snail be taxed
| which il subject for the time being to the taxing
| power in the given locality. This rule is without
exception 1t prevails in Savannah. Mayor
and Aldermen of Savannah VS.. Weed. 81 Ca
6S3. The property in question is situate in that
| city, and, as already SAID, its beneficial owner
ship is not in the municipality, but in those
who long ago purchased it from the city or who
hold under such purchasers by succession to
their title Relatively to the question of taxa
| ton, it makes no substantial difference whether
the estate or property OF beneficial owners be
classed as realty or personally; whatever prop
erty OF either kind belongs 10 them, is taxable
ad valorem. That the so-called ground rent
| lots as long as the conditions OF sale are I'M
broken, are the property OF the purchasers fol
Laurence vs.. the Mayor, Il Ga, 1872; and that
case shows that even after condition broken,
the limit Of the city's rights would
rearages cleared and discharged. the
surplus proceeds realized by a sale of the prop
erty being payable to the real owner. Our
reasons for the conclusion at which we have ar