5 A.2d 91 | Pa. | 1938
There is presented on this appeal the question whether the City of Philadelphia can collect the four mill tax, levied under the Act of June 17, 1913, P. L. 507, and its supplements, on a judgment recovered by the Estate of Mary J. Frederick against the city, growing out of the condemnation of her land for public purposes. The Orphans' Court decided that the tax was not collectible, for reasons not similar to those we shall assign, and the Superior Court, on appeal to it (
The statute provides, Section 1, (
Section 17 (
The portions of section 1 of the act which invite our particular attention are these: "All personal property of the classes hereinafter enumerated . . . is hereby made taxable, annually, for county purposes, that is to say. — All mortgages; all moneys owing by solvent debtors whether by promissory note, or penal or single bill, bond or judgment; all public loans whatsoever. . . ." The portions of section 17 to be considered are: ". . . all scrip, bonds, certificates, and evidences of indebtedness issued, and all scrip, bonds, certificates, and evidences of indebtedness assumed, or on which interest shall be paid, by any county, city, borough, township, school district, or incorporated district of this Commonwealth are hereby made taxable . . . for State purposes, at the rate of four mills on each dollar of the nominal value thereof. . . ."
We are of the opinion that the language of the two sections of the act above quoted negatives the idea that the tax was intended to be levied on the judgment here in question, or upon any judgment, unless it is obtained upon a mortgage, promissory note, penal or single bill, a bond, or other obligation voluntarily incurred. General expressions used in a statute are restricted to things and persons similar to those specifically enumerated in the language preceding the general expressions:Derk v. Zerbe Twp.,
When the history of this kind of tax legislation,* beginning with the Act of April 29, 1844, P. L. 486, Sec. 32, is taken into account, it is manifest that the legislature never intended to tax judgments generally, but only such as were entered upon, or had their foundation in, some form of obligation similar to those enumerated in the act. Although legislation of this kind has been on the statute books for almost a century, so far as we have knowledge, it has never heretofore been supposed that it warranted the taxation of tort judgments or judgments of the kind here entered.
Under the 17th section, if liability for the tax were to be fixed, it would have to be under the words "evidences of indebtedness on which interest shall be paid by any city." A judgment, while it carries interest, is not an evidence of indebtedness of the kind covered by the language used, which speaks of "scrip, bonds, certificates and evidences of indebtedness" meaning some form of obligation issued or assumed by the various municipalities.
We, therefore, hold that the judgment in question is not subject to tax under either section of the Act.
The appeal is dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.