The San Francisco call., 1897-03-02

tmposed upon the corpora ate property; that the
inhibition against double taxation only ap-
plies to such taxation by the same state OF
Government.
TO the same effect are the cases, San Fran
cisco VS.. Flood, "a Cal. 5O4 ana MacKay et a..
vs. San Francisco, as Pac. Rep 696. IN .nis
tier case plaintiffs were executors ana sued
on behalf of the estate OF Theresa Fair, de.
ceased, to recover taxes paid under protest
upon bonds of a corporation orgehlzcu ~
Arizona payable in New York ana mor.gageo
in Arizona and our Supreme Court held, July
%, 1896, that said bonds could De ta1eu ~
California as the property OF Permanent
resident OF California, and that sucn .aAa.n1h th
was not in contrave ntion OF the fourteenth
amendment of the Federal constitution Wnicn
guaran tees to all persons the equal protectloh
of the laws.
contention of plaintiff cannot be sustained
The next contention OF plalntlh In support
of her complaint is that as to the stocks ana
bonds situate outside OF the State, not having
been sen t out of the jurisdiction with the in
tent to evade taxation here, they are not
assessable against her for the reason tn AZ the
same have situs outside OF the state Oh Cali
fornla and have never at any time been In her
possession or under her dominion or control.
Plaintiff is resident and citizen OF Caliior,
MIA, and Leland Stanford was a resident ana
citizen OF California at the time OF his death.
In the case OF San Francisco VS.. Mackay,
West Coast Reporter, 407. decided il Novem-
Der. 1884, Sawyer, Circuit Judge, held, CON-
corning the situs OF stock OF q Caillorn1a cor
"The situs of incorporeal, Intangible, per-
sonal property tor purposes OF taxation is that
of the residence OF the owner when living out
side of the State as veil as when living within
it. > There is no definition, SO far
as am aware, in the constitution or statutes
of California declaring what shall constitute
the situs of such property (shares OF stock tor
the purpose of taxation or otherwise; and, in
the absence of such definition. we must be
governed by the general and well established
rules of law on the subject, and that Is that II
foll fhn oft
This case and many others sustain the legal
fiction tIat certificates of shares of stocks and
bonds are wherever the owner Is
The remainder of plaintiff argument is to
!, the effect that she cannot be taxed upon the
stocks and bonds pledged in New YORK as col
lateral security for loans, because not being In
her actual possession she is not chargeable
with them as executrix, and that being
pledged they are not taxable.
An executor is chargeable with property
which was pledged by his de cedent. as well as
with property in the hands of third parties to
See Sa-? 7. Am. % and Eng. Ency. Law, p. 242-247-
255. c. c. P, Sec. 1443.
The pledging OF the property gave tn the
pledgee no title to it,or to any part OF it, The
pledge has merely a lien upon it, and the
title to it is still in the pledgor.
Shares of stock which have been pledged as
collateral are taxable in the piedgor's name.
See Waltham Bank VS.. Waltham, 10 Met.
Mass. 334; Tucker VS.. Aiken, n. H., lib;
Ratterman VS.. ingalls,, % n. E. Rep. (Ohio)
16S.
Under the constitution and laws Of this
State certain deductions are allowed for debt,
for the purpose of fixing assessment valua-
tions. Article XIII, section l, OF the constitu
ton, provides for a reduction from solvent
credits, of debts due to hona fide residents of
this State, and the same provision is re-
enacted in subdivision OF section 3629, Politi-
cal Code, but this favor is not extended to
debts of citizens OF this Sat to due to citizens OF
other States.
Not following the initiative of great
many ermiEe- wearers in recent days.
judge Hebbard pauses at this point with
sufficient respect for the constitutionally
recognized lawmakers to say:
If this rule be harsh in its application to the
facts and circumstances of such a case as the
one before the court, the amelioratlon thereof
must come from the Legislature and cannot
come at first instance from the courts.
After reviewing all the law that had
been read in favor OF Mrs. Stanford 8
claim the decree of the court was as
follows:
The demurrer must be sustained, and as 1t is
apparent that plaintiff cannot successfully
amend, the action is dismissed.
Assistant City Attorney Rhodes Borden.
who had charge of this phase of the City 3
litigation, expressed qualification over the
result. He said: II think Judge Heb
bard's decision is good law. and / don't
see how the attorneys for the other side
will be able to meet his logic when the
matter goes to the Supreme Court. So
far as / can see the position taken by
Judge Hebbard is unassailable and can
conceive of no contingency by which the
City can be defeated In this controversy.
The State constitution and the provisions
of the codes appear to be conclusive. 1t
is a signal victory for the people of the
City and the State and / cannot foresee
any chance for overturning this decision
in the Supreme Court"