The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-05-19
DECISION AS TO TAX on COTTON
An Important Decision of the Supreme
Court I'm the Case of Murdoch and
Watt vs.. the Commissioners of Ire
.1on

Watt vs.. the Commissioners Of IRE
dell.
The Landmark stated recently that
in the case Of Murdoch and Watt ys.
the commissioners of Iredell, concern
ming tax on certain cotton, the Su-
preme Court hal reversed b iudg-
ment of the lower cour and dismiss
ed the proceeding. This wee ka copy
OF the judgment in this case was re-
ceived by Clerk HARNESS., of Ireseu
Superior Court and as the case is an
important one The Landmark prints
it for information.
Messrs. r. X. Murdoch and n. p.
watt, cotton dealers OF ~Statesville, had
on hand in the spring Of 1902 cotton
valued at s10,0so. IN May, 1902, they
wrote to Mr.. John Van L~andingham.
commission merchant of Charlotte,
asking him to sell the cotton for them.
He offered to make the sale for a Ger
tain commission Int was accepted. On
the 1st day of June, 1902, the cotton
was still in a warehouse in States
vile, under the control of Murdoch
and Watt, and had not been sol by
Mr.. Van LandinSham, although undar
the contract mentioned it was in his
hands to sell. Now under the law "the
value Of cotton, tobacco OF other prop
erty in the hands of commission ner-
chants or agents in or out Of the
state is a solvent credit, and il re-
turning solvent credits the AMOUNT
Of collectable debts owing by him
Well, when Murdoch and Watt made
their return of property on hand June
1st, 1902, they returned S10,080 worth
OF cotton As a solvent credit and de-
duc-3d therefrom S10,S00 of indebted
ness, which of course left them due
LESS than nothing" in the way OF tax
| on the cotton.
! To this return the county commits
| sioners denurred. The commissioners,
under advice Of counsel, held that the
cotton, being in d warehouse in States
vile under cOnt.ol of Murdoch and
| Watt, was not really in the hands CT"
Mr.. Van Landingham as a commission
merchant, although he was authoriZ-
ed to sell it for a commission; and
that therefore Murdock and Watt
could not return the property as a SOL
vent credit and deduct their indebted
ness therefrom, but must list the cot
ton as other personal property and
pay taxes accordingly.
After several hearings on the nat
ter the commissioners ordered that the
tax due on the cotton under their rul-
ing-$95. 61-be collected, and Murdock
and Watt paid The tax and appealed.
The case came up for a hearing be-
fore Judge Bryan at last February
term of Iredell superior court. Judge
Bryan decided-agalnst the defendants
the commissioners-and they appeal
ed. The opinion of the Supreme Court
is writer by Justice George H.
Brown and is as follows:
His honor, Judge Bryan, instructed
the jury upon the evidence to answer
the issue NO." and gave judgment
for plaintiffs for $95. 81, the amount Of
tax which the plaintiffs had paid. in
this we think there was error.
1st. We are Of opinion that the tvi-
denca failed to bring the transaction
within the terms of the act of 1901
chapter Z, section So. All the evidence
including that OF the plaintiffs them
selves, tended TO prove that the cot
ton was not lin the hands of a com
mission merchant or agent in or ONT
of the state" but was in the plaintiff :
own hands and possession and under
their control ana keeping; that Oh
June 1, 1902, it was in their warehous;
III Statesville, to which they had me
keys. Therefore the value Of the cot
ton in the hands Of a commission mer.
chant" under the facts in this c Sc
could not very we'll be assessed as I
solvent credit, and therefore the &C.
ton OF the board was legal.
End. The superior court had no jur'
isdiction to render the judgment Sc
out in the record. It is true the case
on appeal calls this proceeding a civil
action, but the record discloses :ha
it is not, as shown by the followin:
extract: THE appellent board ia
clined to accept che return as made b.
appellees, and ordered the clerk 81
it's board to make out a receipt fol
taxes in conformity to corrected az
return, from which order the appel
lees appealed to the superior court il
term. The following is the order q
said board: Ordered, that the clerl
Of this board make out the tax lie
ceipt against Watt and Murdoch 10
5 $10,09O, as corrected receipt for return
of 1902"
Eat the meeting of the board D
) commissioners II August the follo@in
appears of record: The question o
} taxes against Watt and Murdoch, Ipo1
; motion to reconsider; motion overall
ed, from which defendants give no
tice OF an appeal Notice of appea
. waived in open session"
, 1t appears from, the judgment of In
l superior court that the ad valorem Ia,
of S95.G1 assessed upon the cotton Wa
paid by plaintiffs, and the cour rem
l ders judgment liz their favor agains
L defendants for that sum. Although
the point was not made, we fell it on
> duty to notice the defect of jurisdiction
l in the superior court to render tn