The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-02-22
the Opinion In the Case Of
bstin,and Northwestern.
IND HOW IT'S ToBE COLLECTED
Inion of a Majority Of the Thitd
rt OF Appeals Sustains the
decision OF Trial Court.


all be taxed is involved:
an action brought By the state
TO recover from the Austin ana
stern Railroad company several
dollars alleged to be due me
ID Travis county as ad vaiorcm
on certain property owned oy the
and described in the pc
d the assessment made by the tax
as follows:
tory of property owned by the
nd Northwestern Railroad company
erred for assessment of taxes for
1897 by IL. NJ. Metz to IL. NJ.
assessor of Travis county, STATE
!. the same being the property OF
stIn and Northwestern Railronu
not rendered by it for taxation
year.
gible personal property of said
esNorthwestern Railroad conf
he state of Texas, consisting
privileges, immunlties, good
opea aud franchise to do and
anu the State of Texas the
s.a Dad company as com
.'vl' light and passengers for
n the rendered Judgment for the
.ohoo the State has appealed.
20 have been no confilct IN
suicind the statement of tacts'
res the rules in such cases, IN
Zig out the evidence In detail,
e'hcts established by the cyl
Fhr these facts thus stated are
tthis court as its conclusions ur
her things, the facts show that
n corporation chartered by lhis
ku has constructed and is operat.
.lroad extending from the city oil
y,n Travis county. through the coun
Williamson and Burnet and to the
81 Llano. in Lluno county, and that
IDclpal office and domicilc Is located
city of Austin. county OF Travis. Tho
4 fudge assigned three reasons tor
ng the case for the defendant, the
Is stated by him, being as follows.
TIC plalntlu's contention that what
slgpated us intangible property in the
sment Is properly subject to taxation
may be listed for taxation separately
TIE real estate Of the defendant com.
yet the constitutional requirement
all property shall be assessed in the
j In which II Is situated, Is not com.
with In this assessment, but the
} Of the intangible property of the
dint company Is assessed in Travis
Is true that intangible property has
'iual situs. Ii can only have II con.
i've sltus. Our supreme court has
With reference TO intangible property,
as credits of individuals, that they
sxabe at the residence Of the owner.
Is VS.. Kimble, rs Texas, 476) Rut
snee Of circumstances affecting rat
corporations has compelled the adop-
y different rule as to the intangible
fty owned by them. The supreme
Of the United States in passing upon
question, said with reference to the
gible property of corporation:
Were Is the situs Of this intang bl,
ry! Is 1t simply where its homo
. u.s. where is found tho controlling,
lng thought which controls the wo k.
ol Tue great machine, or In the State
gave 1t Its corporate franchise. or
at intangible property distributed
yer lts tangible property IL located
y work done? Clearly, MS we think,
sper; adams Express Co. VS.. Ohio
auditor, 1866 U. s., 1851
.e may be Interstate lines running
'nis stnte under State comfy, whose
" arc granted by and whose hon.
situated In another State. Then
UNIV IN this state through which the
@lgut run, could claim any advantage
~ other county In assessing the
'sse property OF such corporation
s,a nisanglOle property may be assessed
sey rom Its physical properties,
county must he entitled to It's prn.
y Of such intangible property. or no
I'm claim any interest therein. h 1t
,r nave the State from which tns
.as putt 10 assess all it's intangi' he
Y I, though nearly nll its road might
uhs STATE know of no case In
ine rule as 10 sltus of Intangible
~ OF Individuals for the purpose OF
Ivn mas been applied to railroad cor,
snis state every statutory enactment
sng me subject has disreCnrded the
applied to individuals. Tangible per,
peperty which usually follows the
IN, NE owner, has not been allowed
Nv me principal office of n corpora
re.,, nas railroad been considered
* , s.h, or any particular county
~ sra Snien II runs, for the purposes Of
!, sui y may lie sued in any county
us M,uicn II runs for any cause of
! othnr nhy nave arisen against IL
v,uer county In the State"
a., o'aet members Of this court concur
w trlal Judge on this pnint; and that
,er, taus 10 an aftlrmance of the
~, IN ana renders It unnecessary TO de.
sS'ler interesting questions ably pra.
counsel for the respective par.
Nh question referred to. the wr.ter
-es ~ agree with his associates. aud
ma nut the doctrine announced bv
. a-seopurt In Ferris VS.. Kimhle (I5
no, 'ol, that the situs of intangible
AZ property Is In law and for pur.
where the owner resides,
lEnrry,auon TO this case. Tho CASE
IN y ~, The right of municipal cor
N cbas collect nd valorom taxes upon
bad ses n action belonging to Ferris.
\ M u oInce and transacted business
resIaedn limits OF the municipality. hut
W, n outside of such limits. Then,
d IN ,h "s me law of this State. EN-.
m nro,a, statutes and constitution
a he ls,oS' unless otherwise required,
Z countveu ana assessed for taxation
The anu municipality whore sit
! ~ personal property was the rest
ct n owner; and that IL was moi
cas- taxation at any other place
to ~, s supported by authorities r.,
no IL he opinion aud Others that
Of h.su, and II not ovorrulcd, Is do
ina question under consideration
rihle mere fact that the owner o
Instead onerty Is n railway corporn
be ann,,i q natural person, will Jus
n ispisation OF different ruIe
|pal o,ssulheient analogy between m,
lou sns e and legal domiclIe Of cor
o renda. ue residence of natural per,
qnlrasN the one, In general sense
air. ~ OF the other. and they mr.,
pahla regarded by the law: and
{ auess, u'scern any sufficient reason
" frona under consideration. FOR de-
thersfr .his rule. and the result thu,
true th as held in the Ferris case
It's f,auat the rallrond conlnany },
lly In ,hnlse 10 operate its railroad
ch on ne county of its domicile' bni
bets IL Nc other counties where II
'atural nsless of common carrier
80 ana sn sons can and do transact
then one Iulre chooses In action N
l3s farf s"uhty ~ the same time
'nce 10 ,hyls not change the rule II
~. And ,rAtus OF their intangibl,
fFanehjss 10 my opinion. sneh usl
rlhIe snus Of the franchise or otne,
he 1, grsonal property. - $500
am ~ conceded rhnf ADAM.
pport ONO n66 U. s.. 160- seem.
'rthy ~ associates in their yIews. n
rcp,t W note that four n,an,inrs' -,