Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-05-28
IMPORTANT TAXATION CASE
Personal Property Must be in the State
April First to be Taxed for the -
Current Year.
Supreme Court Holds in Case Brought
by Machinery Firm to Test
,5:t Tax Laws.
Judge Young Writes Opinion in One
Of Most Important Cases Decided
.... by Court.

Dy NouIt.
In a long opinion written by Justice
Young, the supreme court reverses the
district court Of Trail county, Judge
Pollock, in the case of Gaar, Scott e
Co. VS.. J. A. Serum as sheriff of Trail
county. The case is one of the most
important argued at the recent term,
and the question at issue was whether
personal property, coming into the
state after April 1, is taxable for that
year.
The plaintiff is a foreign corporation
engaged in the manufacture of thresh-
ing machines in the city of Richmond,
Indiana. The action was brought to
recover the sum of 500. %, paid by
plaintiff to the defendant, as sheriff of
Traill county, for an alleged personal
property tax assessed by the taxing
officers of said county in the year 1900
upon certain threshing engine and
separator, Of which the plaintiff was
the owner. Payment of the tax in
question was made by plaintiff under
protest and under the coercion of a
seizure of it's property by the defend
ant sheriff. The defendant interposed
a general demurrer to the complaint
and the same was sustained by the
trial court. Judgment was ordered
and entered dismias asing the action.
Plaintiff appealed from the judgment
and assigns the order sustaining the
demurrer to it's complaint as error.
The complaint in substance alleges
that the property. which was the basis
of the tax exacted from plaintiff, yas
not in Traill county or in this state on
the first day of April, 1900, but was at
plaintiffs factory, at the city of Rich
mond, in the state of Indiana, on said
date; that said property was listed
and assessed fer taxation in sail city
and state for said year; that the prop
ETY. in question was not shipped into
boro, in Trail county, until April 9th,
1900; that subsequent to said last
named date it was assessed by the city
assessor of said city of Hillsboro for
the year 1900 and said assessment re-
turned to the; county auditor of Traill
county; that the tax in question was
based upon the assessment so made
and returned. ...
The facts stated present the single
question in controversy in this case,
which is whether, Under the revenue
laws of this state, property coming in
to existence Or brought into the state
after April 1st, in any year, is taxable
for that year. 1t is conceded that if
property brought into the state after
April 1st is subject to taxation for the
current year, the property in question
was lawfully assessed and the COM
plaint does not state cause of action.
If, on the other hand, property coming
into the state after April list is not tax
able for that year, then the sum OF
money which plaintiff seeks to recover
concededly was eXacted without au-
thority of law and the complaint states
cause of action for it's recovery. 1t
will thus be seen that the entire con-
troversy is as to the taxability of the
plaintiffs property whe1f assessed. '
The supreme court holds that prop
erty. brought into the state after April
LIST, is not taxable for that year. in the
following syllabus:
t'The general revenue laws of this
state, embodied in chapter 126, laws
of 1897, designate April 1st as the
date for determining the taxability of
personal property and it's value for the
purposes of taxation. Personal prop
erty not then in existence. or brought
into the state after such date, is not
taxable for the current year.
In this action the trial court sus-
tained a general demurrer to the com
pIaint, which stated cause of action
Z ! y F s ~ ~
| for the recovery OF money paid by the
plaintiff under protest and under the
coercion Of a seizure Of it's property by
defendant, for an alleged tax assessed
by the taxing officers of Trail county
for the year 1900. upon property
brought into the state by plaintiff on
April 9th Of that year. Held, error
In reaching this conclusion the su-
preme court observes that the rev.
enue laws now in forco in this state
were taken originally from the Mime
sofa statutes. The supreme court od
that state has decided that the taxation
of property is to be made with refer