The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-07-22
GROUND RENT LOT TAXES
TEXT OF THE DECISION AGAINST
I'D WEED.

| ATLANTA. GA, July Zl.-Ihe supIem
court has handed down a decision in thu
case q Weed ct al. VS.. the mayor anc
aldermen of the city Of Savannah. The
Judges say: "Some cases task the anxious
diligence of the court, not by their diff
Guilty, but their simplicity. This is one OF
them. Because the case seemed too plain
for controversy, we have had some appre-
hension that we might decide it Incorrectly.
Impressed always by the ability and learn
ing. the wide research aud earnest advocacy
of the distinguished counsel for the plain
tifs, we have experienced a vague
dread that we might stumble over
legal obstacles which, if they exist,
a treacherous darkness conceals. In order TO
| examine the ground thoroughly we have
held up the case for months, read authori-
ties, cited and not cited, perused books be
| fore unknown to US, deliberated meditated,
considered and reconsidered. But to the
| last hour we have discovered nothing
debatable in the controversy raised for our
decision, fringed though it certainly is with
technical niceties Of great de. cacy aud
much interest. To which side the artificial
| logic of these niceties would incline the
scale is immaterial, for the solid practical
subject of taxation must be dealt with on
bTOdueF pTluClpIeS. 1uo value Oh tue
property consists in its use, and he who
owns the use forever, though it be on
condition subsequent, is the true owner Of
the property for the time being. This holds
equally of a city lot, or of all the land in
the world.
OBJECT OF TAXATION.
where taxation ia ad valorum, values
are the ultimate object of taxation, and they
to whom the values belong should pay the
taxes. Land sold by a contract of bargain
and sale, or demised forever subject to per
petual rent, is taxable as corporal proper
ty; and in private hands the rent also is
taxable as an incorporeal heriditament. The
tax on the former is chargeable to the pur-
chaser or perpetual tenant, and on the lat
ter to the owner of the rent. The corporal
property in such a case Is at the
direct risk of the purchaser. He alone
sustains the losses of depreciation in
value and he alone takes the benefit of ap-
probation. The vender 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 his security, not his prop
erty, will be affected thereby.
ut is to be assumed that the whole con-
tract between parties will be observed, not
broken, and their true relation to the prop
erty is to be determined on that assump-
ton.
CONSTITUTES OWNERSHIP.
The possession of real estate attended with
an indefeasible right to occupy in perpet-
uity and also with an indefensible right to
be clothed with the fee upon the voluntary
payment of fixed sum as
purchase money, will constitute
the purchaser the substantial owner of the
property so long as his possession, supple-
mented with these rights continues. He is
not mere lessee, but purchaser admitted
into possession on the faith Of his contract
of purchase. Such were the contracts in
volved in the present case, and under them
the purchasers have the actual possession
and the use Of the promises, with the right
to hold forever, on condition Of paying ur
the purchase money whenever they please
and until that time an actual ground rent,
due by quarterly installments, the amount
of which is fixed by the contract, and is the
equivalent of interest at a moderate rate
per annum on the unpaid purchase money.
In all respects, SO far as liability for taxes
Is concerned, these purchasers are in the posi-
ton of ordinary purchasers in possession
under bond for title, and these last are
charGeable with accruing taxes on the lane
SO held.
THE CITY NOT A BENEFICIARY.
Not an iota of beneficial ownership in tn
city lots now in question abides in the mu'
nicipality The city but retained quail.
fled and wholly unproductive title as secu-
rity for the purchase money, and until tha
shall be paid, as security also fol
| the annually accruing compensa-
ton under the name of ground rent
in lieu of interest on that money. If tn
municipal government held all the value
| in the city as trustees for the owners or a
security for purchase money, these value
would be none the less taxable for tina
reason. The constitution of the state re
| quires that taxes on property shall be &C
valorem, and that when any part is taxeC
| all shall be taxed. which is subject for tn,
time being to the taxing power il
the given locality. This rule is without Elk
ception. 1t prevails in Savannah, mayo
| and aldermen of Savannah VS.. Weed, s.
| Georgia, 683. The property i'll question i
situated in that city, and, as already said
its beneficial ownership is not in the mu
nicipality, but in those who long ago pur
chased il from the city, or who hold undel
such purchases by succession OF their title
Relative to the question of taxation, i
makes no substantial difference whether tn,
estate or property of beneficial owners b.
clasSed as realty or personally. Whateve
property of either kind belongs to them i
taxable ad valorem.
| PROPERTY OF THE PURCHASERS.
THAT the so-called ground rent lots, a
long as the conditions of sale are uubroken
are the property of the purchasers follows
from what was decided by this court in Law
renee VS.. the mayor II Georgia, 1872; snC
that case shows that even after the condi-
ton was broken the limit Of the city's right
would generally be to have all arrearage
cleared and discharged, the surplus pro-
ceeds realized by sale Of the property be
ing payable to the real owners. Our reason
for the conclusion at which we have arrived
need not be further elaborated
The constitution is imperative thai
property is TO he taxed ad valorum. TIL
foundation principally of such system i
that those who own and enjoy the value
are to pay the taxes. The real owners O.
the money which these lots would now sci
for on the market are the persons whom W,
have designated as owners and it is upol
the cash market value that the taxes ar,
aSseSsaols. II that value is any less on &C
count of the subsection Of the property t,
ground rents or unpaid purchase money
than it otherwise would be, that fact would
no doubt be taken into consideration il
making the assessment. The market value
whatever that may be, is the proper basis
There was no error either Of practic;
or decision i'll denying the injunction
Whatever the expectation of the purchasers
or the unbroken practice of the city hith
orto may have been, the mandate of tn,
constitution of 1876 is to tax all property
save that expressly exempted by the legis.
lature under constitutional authority, i
any is taxed. That this mandate NAV hav,
heretofore been disregarded is no reason
why it should not be obeyed now. The