Case Name: Cary, Bangs & Woodward, plaintiffs in error, vs. J. L. Edmondson, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 44 Ga. 651
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cary, Bangs & Woodward, plaintiffs in error, vs. J. L. Edmondson, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Cary, Bangs & Woodward, plaintiffs in error, vs. J. L. Edmondson, defendant in error.
(By two judges.) — Non-residents of this State are not required, by our law, to pay taxes on notes held by them on citizens of this State, and when the payee of a note is the plaintiff in a suit on a note dated before June, 1865, and it appear that, at the date of the note, and continuously since, he has not resided here, and that he has been the owner of the note from its date, he is not required to make the affidavit of taxes being paid as required by the Act of October 13th, 1870. 27th February, 1872.
Taxes. Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Harrell. Terrell Superior Court. May Term, 1871.
Cary, Bangs & Woodward sued Edmondson upon his promissory notes dated in 1860, and purporting to have been made in Baltimore. He filed several pleas, one of which was that he ought to pay no interest because “said notes were held during the war by the parties who resided in the city of Baltimore and could not be paid.” Because no affidavit of the payment of taxes had been filed under the Relief Act of 1870, the Court dismissed the cause, although their “ attorney stated and offered to prove that they were non-residents.” This is assigned as error.
R. E. Simmons, by Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiffs in error.
Wooten & Hoyle, for defendant.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
This case turns upon the non-residence of the plaintiff. We have decided in several cases that notes held by nonresidents of this State, not used here, but only here for collection, are not taxable by our laws. The proof here is that at the making of the note, and continuously since, the plaintiff, to whom the note is payable, has not resided in this State. This the judgment, under these rulings, made, doubtless, since this decision by Judge Harrell, must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.