The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-12-07
Kansas Mortgages Must Submit
to Taxation.
Even Though Property Covered
Is Outside Of State.
DECISION ANNOUNCED.
One Of List Handed Down by
s Supreme Court.
Two Minor Cases From Shawnee
County Decided.

Under a decision Of the Kansas SUI
preme court rendered this morning,
taxpayer of Kansas can not escape tax
alton on notes and mortgages by the
fact that they are secured by property
outside the state, by the fact that the
notes and mortgages are left on de-
posit outside of the state.
This important matter was decided In
the suit brought by the county COM
missioners of johnson county against
c. B. Hewitt Hewitt lived in johnson
county and in 1903 made loan of 3d.
600 to peoplsstn Kansas City, Mo. The
notes were scared by a trust deed to
some real estafe In Kansas City. The
notes were never brought into Kansas
but were placed ina safe deposit vault
in the First National bank of Kansas
City. The notes were assessed by the
township assessors in johnson county
but Hewitt refused to pay the taxes:
The case was taken from the board OF
equalization to the district court where
it was decided that Hewitt should not
pay taxes on the notes. Inc appear
to the supreme court resulted In re-
yersal of this decision. The opinion
was written by Justice Burch VINO
says:
question whether a resident owner Oh
debts
cages has property in this state Is NOT
to be determined by the LOCALITY IN
which the debts were created, nor py
the place where the security lies nor
by the residence OF the debtors: Anu
II is impossible to believe that the leg
islature intended to regard notes given
by nonresidents and secured by mort
cages on property in another state as
outside it's jurisdiction merely because
fine resident owner, returning home at
fer the conclusion Of the business
transaction producing them, left them
lust beyond the state line.
This decision is of great Importance
Fin kansas since the new tax commits
sion law went into effect. 1t was con-
tended by some persons that the pro
vision in the law requiring all moneys,
notes and mortgages to be assessed az
its actual value would, result IN tne
sandinp of many. securities and mucn
money to places outside the state. by
this decision of the court such pro
ced.ape-,Hou ld not prevent the assess,
Z ment9as1d taxation of the securiIles anu anu
money Iif the assessors know that the
resident owns them
The court rendered its formal decis-
| Ion in the case of the state OF Kansas
Versus Fl " Lawrence, an original
proceeding in mandamus brought py
the county attorney of Ffnney county
| to compel Lawrence to- turn over 70 "a
| c. Wheeler the office OF county IreaS-
er had been given certlncate OF cree
| tion.
| lowed the writ. The opinion today ex-
plains the reason for this acton. me me
SYLLABUS says: Where the title to the
| cffice of county treasurer has been de-
| termfned by the district court on pro-
ceedings in error from the contest court
| and the execution of such judgment is
/ not sustained the state may upon the
| relation of the county attorney main
| tain mandamus to compel the denVery
I of the money, books and records OF the
| office to the person so adJudged TO De
elected. although the defeated party In
Tho contest is prosecuting proceedings
in error in this court from such judge
merit" =
On rehearing the supreme court re-
! affirns it's decision in the case or A
Henley ct al versus E. E. Myers, re-
ceiver. a Douglas county case In TINS
case w H. Stevenson recovered judg-
ment against, the Consolidated Barb
Wire company for persona on ,1 INJURIES to
levy and Stevenson had Myers appoint
| ed as receiver for the company. The
! receiver then sued the stockholders UNI
der the double liability law ana re-
covered judgment. The supreme. court
affirmed this decision but granted re-
hearing on certain technical grounds
In commenting on the grounds aIlegeo
for the rehearing the court says; me
expression could not have amounted TO
| a decision and was intended rather, as
! a concession for the purpose or the
argument than as even an intimate OF
opinion AS it has been brought in
| question in the reargument 1t may De
regarded as withdrawn"
| The court reversed the case of the
| Union Pacific railroad against A L..
Entsmtnger from Shownee county.
In this case Mr.. Entsminger. a silver
Lake farmer, sued for the value of
/ four head of cattle which the Union
| Pacific train killed while he was drlv-
ing the herd across the track. The
/ iury in the lower court gave Ents-
! ringer a Judgment. but. the supreme
| court says that If Entsmtnger had
taken proper precautions, he might
| have avoided driving his cattle on the
track Just as the train was approach
ing.
Tho decision of the Shawnee dis
trict court in the case of "A. A. Votaw
| 81 al AGAINST H s. McKeever is af-
! armed. This was a case in which two
real estate firms each assisted in the
1 sale of piece Of property, and the
i commission was paid to one OF the
t sfa5. fhs amount 'S'@ was ''
The court reverses the decision of
] the Coffey county district court in the
case of the Standard Stock Food com
4 pany against A. ]. Jasper. Jasper
! bought q bill of goods from the COM
pany and refused to pay for them on
| the ground that the company was a
foreign corporation. The court finds
/ that while the company was foreign
corporation and had not complied
with the laws Of the state. there was
no showirg that the company was do