The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-02-09
A FARREACHING
DECISION GIVEN.
Capital Employed in Mercantile Bust
ness Not Taxable.
OPINION IN INSURANCE CASE.
Policies on Life Of Davis Must Re Paid
TO His Estatc-Supremc Court
Adiourns for the Term.
other Cases.

Tho Court OF Appeals. after handing
down FIVE opinions. adjourned Tor the
term yesterday The spring term begins
March eth.
A very unfortunate case decided was
that of the Board Of Supervisors OF
Montgomery county vs.. W. +. Tailant'
from the Circuit Court Of Montgomery.
The question presented was as 10 the
power Of the Supervisors 10 assess for
taxation for county, school and district
purposes. the capital employed by "a mer~
Chant in his mercantile business Tie
real question involved was whether the
State assesses with taxes the capital EN-
ployed by a merchant IN his business
After quoting from the act providing for
the assessment Of taxes. Acls hsy-t0
p. lg7. sec. q. the court says:
IT seems perfectly clear from the Ian
guage quoted that the Legislature mas
not only failed 90 declare that the capital
employed by merchants in their business
should DO assessed for taxation, but has
expressly said that IL shall not be so
assessed by declaring that the license
required shall be in lieu OF all taxes for
state purposes on the capital actually
emplOved by the said merchant or mer-
camille firm I'm said business. And. 10
further make plain the legislative intent
he same section provides what the
word capital shall include and says 'all
other property held by such merchant or
firm shall be listed and taxed as other
property again excluding the idea that
capital employed by the merchant should
5e assessed for taxation
IL was conceded that for county pur-
poes the Supervisors can only levy taxes
upon such property as is assessed with
state taxes within the county. that they
cannot look beyond the subjects of taxa
lion provided by be Legislature.
In concluding its opinion. The court
Saws. The legislature has made no pro-
vision authorizing counties 10 assess Tor
taxation the capital employed by mer-
chants i'm their business; on the contrary
IL was expressly refraincd from taxing
said capital for state purposes. and TINS
determines the right Of the county 10 90
so.
"Wbether or not the present condition
Of the statutes i'm this matter IS the re-
suit of design or mere inadvertence. is
NOT for the courts 20 determine The
nolicv Of the state i'm the matter of taxa
zion subject 10 the fundamental law,
rests with her representatives. If wrong
is done the counties by allowing the capl-
tai employed by merchants 10 escape
taxation tine remedy IS with me Aesl7ld-
ure and not in the courts. For these
reasons. the decree appealed from must
be affirmed. .,s
Judge Harrison wrote the opinion ana
Judges Keith and Cardwol concurie u .
Judqes Rely and Buchanan disseniea-
A Question Of Priority.
Tho Chc1it Court or Halifax was up
hold Am the case of the Merchants Bank
of Dauvilc SIS. Ballou and others. O.. r..
Bsllou. on September %. 1892. conveyed
ID w lawson. trustee. certain mill
..r.,..t,. to secure the Bank 0f South
ro..,,, tro sum of 5000 This deed was
had -ooor.sd until Auri -. 1885, The
-,.... ,.r.,,.,t,. was conveyed to t. A.
~.,-rir-tor and II. ]. Watkins trustees.
- ,rrn % 1so3 to secure numerous
.-.4-.--s e,or thereafter Darlington
, ,,-..t.i,.. ,.r,oos4od fo execute tho
49, t,.. ..,, f,t,,o+fon was sued out
-, ,,o ,r,,osai sale of the pro-
..,.... ,.,-.r ,,,. su.oed Ground that She
.......,- had ,,,.,.o If the deed for the
s..s .,-. r,..-l, 80 South BOSTON. and
.-..t..- tb.,. nor their
1 .,.r. f...1 had ac-
49,. .t., ,,roliee hv tfs
qulieu p'''''.t iif .i.. cr..ii-
tors We're oe'erinlli,' ID. '''0 .... b,,l1r,
ln ihe 'N'l 4. IT,. 1..5 90
ihat me Den, 49,. ,'..,, ir s,,tor1i
'"rIINe' '" "''' .i,.., ..,c,,-i,,,. ,bs
.'a''.' 10 .i.. -. ,-,. l,so caroe
-. er[-, ,r inta-locltorv de.
''' 'neI, ''I, lioi, .,. ~ aha lover
cree ana 'Y
court was ainiiii''
Insurance l-i'i-"' i''''' s7..,.,i-,,.
Judge Rely Wfoie ."o ol..'3 y, ,i'l l,eo
the circuit Oo"It 'l ,,..,r.-c.
ot the New YORK LIE ii's.' . .'',,
Company vs. DAVIS ana o'".ls.
John ~ W. Davis took oat TWO
policies ON his liie-one lot . 49, - .'.a
The other TOT f'V9' 49, ,.l Rim
for the benefit or his $50 anu r,.
were assigned on June a. $50 10 w. w.
Lester, who had advanced the premium 81, ila..
on each policy. On FEBRUARY - i'.''
ter wao was aIr,s'gI ba ' fotbor Of Davis
aied his bin TO enjoin Lester from COZ