Case Name: The People ex rel. Henry Day, Trustee, Resp't, v. Edward P. Barker et al., Tax Com'rs, App'lts (5 cases.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-18
Citations: 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Henry Day, Trustee, Resp’t, v. Edward P. Barker et al., Tax Com’rs, App’lts. (5 cases.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 44
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Henry Day, Trustee, Resp’t, v. Edward P. Barker et al., Tax Com’rs, App’lts. (5 cases.)
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed February 18, 1892.)
‘Taxes—Personal- property out of state.
The mere fact that securities forming part of a trust fund which is actually deposited outside of the state are liens on property located in this state is not sufficient to render them liable to taxation here.
Appeals from orders vacating or reducing assessments.
George S. Coleman, for app’lts; Daniel Lord, Jr., for resp’t.
Affirming 42 St. Rep., 449.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
With the exception of slight differences which, were .stated by counsel on the argument of these appeals and. to which it is not now necessary to advert, it is conceded that these cases are similar in principle to and are to be governed by that, of the People ex rel. Darrow v. Coleman, 119 N. Y., 137; 28 St. Rep., 937, and unless a distinction of a radical character is to be, found between the cases, the decision of the judge below in making the orders appealed from was correct.
On an examination of all the facts disclosed in the record before us, we can find nothing which should change the application of the principle laid down in the Darrow case, with the single possible exception of the fact that some of the securities are liens, upon property located in the city of New York. There does nof seem to be any other circumstance in the cases now at bar that make them differ from that authority which we conceive to be controlling, and that circumstance we do not regard as sufficient to change the clear rule of law asserted in the Darrow case as we understand that decision.
All of the orders appealed from must therefore be affirmedi. with ten dollars costs and disbursements in one case.
Yan Brunt, P. J., O'Brien and Patterson, JJ., concur.