Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1910-03-17
Judge Holds Notes of For eign Corporations Are
 Taxable.
IT MAY BE- APPEALED
Decision Affects Every Outside Cor. pOratiOn Doing Business in
 Arkansas.

!
 suits filed by the Swift Packing Co.,, Southern Beef and Provision Co.,, Cudahy Company, and the Waters Pierce Oil Company, were decided this morning in Pulaski chancery court and the decision is adverse to the contentious of the four complain ant corporations.
 The decree rendered this morning affects every foreign corporation do- ing business in the state, as well as the ones which are named in the suits It is case in which the cor porations filed motion for an lnJunc- tion to prevent Collector Burt Rob- erts from collecting the taxes on the notes and accounts of the various companies in Pulaski county.
 The contentious of the plaintlffs to tho suits were all similar, and re- cited that the taxation was douole because of the fact that the compah- ies maid taxes on all notes and ac- oo,,n+s .t the home offices in another state.
 Tho oomn1aint also set out that the hoard of equalizers had no rlght to meet on the 18th of October anu make the assessment.
 The history of the cases IS lntef- esting. The board of equailzefs oh This county had never. before assess ed these concerns, and at It's resoAa1
 ,eetins in October it took an ad-
 iournment to the 18th to LOOK ln'o tbo assessments. At that time the noes and accounts of the various con cerns were added to the assessment
 rsts and were SO reported to the collector.
 When the collector attempted to collect the taxes the suit in chahcefs ,,,os entered to restrain him from do- nac;sion Based on Swift Suit. Tho snits are all similar, but that filed Inv the Swift Packing Co.,, IS the one on which the opinion today is ,,osed Judge Martineaus decree was not lengthy and was dellvefeo o,.1,v Passing on the contentloh that the board of equalizers did not have the right to meet on the leeA of Ocober and make the assessment the chancellor recited case Tn sa4-
 ;no county where the board had et later than that date in ad]oufheu soss;on which was afterwards decld- ,, ed by the supreme court as legal.
 On the other contention in the com plaint that the companies palo taAee , on the notes and accounts in other cities and in other states and were : not subject to taxation here, the judge held that did not exempt them , from paying taxes on whatever capi- , tai they had invested in Arkansas.
 Cites Supreme Court Decision.
 He stated that it is a question on
 which the courts of this state had never passed, but recited case that had been decided by the supreme . court of the United States, which ori- ginated in New Orleans. In that case an insurance company loaned money in the state and took note for the money, which was sent to the home office in New York, but the in- terest as it accrued was paid to an agent of the insurance company in New Orleans, and when the note ma tured it was also sent to him for collection. The United States su- preme court held that the fact that the evidence of the debt was out of the state temporarily did not prevent the state from collecting the taxes due on the amount of the capital ac- tually invested in business in the state, and held that the note was sub
 ject to taxation in Louisiana.
 Judge Martineau held that this was similar case to the one now before
 the court Swift X Co.,, maintained an office in the city of Little Rock
 and sold goods to customers on open
 account and also on notes. These
 accounts were for thirty days and were always collected by the repre- | sentatives of the company here and
 forwarded to the home office. He
 held that the collectors and assessors here could not take cognizance of as , sessments in other states and that [ what ever property of the company was in Arkansas at the time for as sessing the taxes was subject to taxa , tion.
 He said there was nothing to show
 that the notes and accounts ever