Court Opinion

ID: 9810449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:50:32.773693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:56.115881
License: Public Domain

BeowN, J.,
dissenting: I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the Court that the tax levied by the city of New Bern upon the plaintiff is valid. The facts, as I gather them from the records, are that the plaintiff, a corporation doing business in the city of Norfolk, leases a warehouse in the city of New Bern for the storage of its own goods only, consisting of fertilizers and fertilizing material.
None of these goods are sold in the city of New Bern, but the sales offices of the plaintiff are outside of the State of North Carolina, at which offices it receives orders from the purchasers of fertilizer through traveling salesmen, and in some instances by mail.
The plaintiff is not engaged in the selling of fertilizer in New Bern, or in the business of a warehouseman. A warehouseman is one whose storage facilities are open to the public. Whereas, the warehouse of the plaintiff is used exclusively for the storage of its own property.
I do not gainsay the right of the General Assembly to tax trades, professions, and franchises; but according to the facts of this case, the plaintiff is. not engaged in the exercise of either within the city of New Bern.
*357Tbe ease came before the Superior Court in the form of a controversy submitted without action, in which it appears affirmatively that the plaintiff is not engaged in the sale of fertilizer in North Carolina, but that the warehouse in question is used •exclusively for the private storage of its own material, and that deliveries are made from that upon orders received from the •company’s offices in Norfolk.
We have at this term held that this company is liable for the ad valorem tax upon the value of its fertilizers stored in the city •of New Bern, which -tax the company will be compelled to pay; but upon the facts agreed, I find no warrant whatever to tax it either as trader or as warehouseman.
In addition to the heavy ad valorem tax adjudged against this plaintiff at this term, it is well to remember that it also pays a tonnage tax of 20 cents per ton upon this very fertilizer. .
To permit the city to tax this plaintiff as dealer, -or warehouseman, when in fact it is not engaged in either capacity in tthis State, is piling Pelion on Ossa in the matter of taxation.
AlleN, J., concurs in dissent.