Case Name: Allison, Anderson & Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. E. D. Graham, administrator, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 45 Ga. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: Allison, Anderson & Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. E. D. Graham, administrator, defendant in error.
Judges: Montgomery, Judge, concurred but furnished no opinion.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 353–355

Head Matter:
Allison, Anderson & Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. E. D. Graham, administrator, defendant in error.
That a plaintiff is now a non-resident of the State is not, of itself, sufficient to excuse the filing of the affidavit of taxes paid under the Act of October 13th, 1870 ; it must appear that he was a non-resident at the contracting of the debt and has so continued, so that no taxes could have been due on the same to this State.
Relief Act of 1870. Taxation. Before Judge Parrott. Dade Superior Court. May Term, 1871.
In March, 1861, Allison, Anderson & Company obtained ajudgment against Der berry. The judgment became dormant and scire facias was issued against Derberry’s administrator to revive it. No affidavit as to the payment of taxes on the debt was filed in the Clerk’s office. Such an affidavit had been attached to the fi. fa.; and it was shown that at the time of the trial plaintiff did not reside in the State. Nothing else appearing, the Court dismissed the case, because the affidavit required by the Act of 1870 was not filed with the Clerk. This is assigned as error.
J. G. Jackaway; J. A. W. Johnson, by W. H. Dabney, for plaintiffs in error.
E. D. Graham, for defendant.

Opinion:
McCay, Judge.
This Court has uniformly held that a debt due to a nonresident is not taxable by our laws, and that, in a suit on such a debt, no tax affidavit is required. But the mere fact that a plaintiff is now a non-resident does not make out that the debt sued on has not, since it was contracted, been taxable. Prima facie, the debt was made at the residence of the defendant. Or it may be that the plaintiff has been a resident. To' allow the construction of the Act contended for by the plaintiff iii error would be to permit any plaintiff to evade the law by moving out of the State or by transferring his claim to a non.-resident. To excuse filing the affidavit it should appear affirmatively, by proper evidence, that the debt is not taxable. That does not appear in this record, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
Montgomery, Judge, concurred but furnished no opinion.