*1 377 ulently represented that the bank would not make loan to woman in petitioner the health was then in. It was held that there was no evidence in the record to show that such statement was false. In case, distinctly appeared plaintiff that the fully cognizant type character of the deed she executed, and it does appear that the defendants or either occupied of them relationship confidential agent. In the bar, plaintiff, case at there is evidence that at* time she deed, executed did so sole obtaining money pay prior deed, jury off loan were authorized find defendant, -that the deed was made to the sale, gift, reason consideration of de- supporting fendant future.
Finding no substantial error law in the the order of record, judge overruling the trial the motion for a new trial as amended is affirmed. concur, except All the Justices Duck- affirmed.
worth, J., who C. dissents. Commissioner, State Revenue v.
Redwine,
Company.
Southern
foreign corporation
Justice. 1.
While domestication of a
do
Hawkins,
ing
business in
this State under the
22-1601
seq.,
equivalent
incorporation,
et
is not
and does not create a
corporation (Foy
Georgia-Alabama
Co.,
&
Shemwell
Fed.
Power
643;
Co.,
807;
App. 119,
Fonester
2d,
Continental Gin
67 Ga.
19 S. E.
Hosiery Mills,
863,
Forrester v.
2d,
Interstate
23 S. E.
Ga.
provide
domesticated,
Code section does
that a
so
powers,
privileges,
shall have the same
and im
munities as similar
created under the
laws
obligations, duties, liabilities,
and be
to the same
and disabilities
originally
as if
(Perry
created under the laws of this State
v. Folkston
Co.,
527, 529,
58;
Rich,
Power
App.
Ga.
183 S. E.
Head v.
61 Ga.
293,
2d, 73;
680,
2d, 183);
6 S. E.
10 S. E.
domesticated,
when so
becomes a resident within the
Bag
Paper
Corp.,
this State. Mitchell v. Union
2d,
Ga.
S. E.
exemptions
2. While it is the rule that
strictly
from taxation are to be
taxpayer,
liberally
construed
public
in favor of the
(Rayle
Membership Corp.
Cook,
Electric
734,
25 S. pushed
this rule should not be
to the extent of unreasonableness.
860);
Muscogee Mfg. Co.,
Columbus
Head v.
paragraph
4 of
Article
section
the 1945 Constitution of
passed
and the
the General
(Ga.
Assembly
1946,p.
Code,
Supp.,
92-130), pro-
in 1946
L.
Ann.
*2
viding that,
exempt
intangible
“There shall
from ad valorem
taxes
all
State,
subsidiary
voting
corporation
in
a
this
the common
stock of
not
percent
doing
State,
ninety
business in this
if at least
of
common
such
Georgia
place
voting
by
corporation
stock is owned
a
with its
acquired
pur-
of
in
or is
for
business located
this State and was
held
the
pose
company
carry
part
parent
the
on
of
of
to
some
its
applies
subsidiary,”
a
line of
to
established
business
fully
completely
as
does
domesticated
and as
as it
foreign
corporation
State,
a
to
created under the laws of this
for a
corporation
entitled,
in
State
with
domesticated
this
is
its
immunity
granted
corporation
to
from taxation
to a
the same
domestic
(supra);
and
its stockholders. Head
provision
Such a
of
of
construction
by
not,
plaintiff in
the
and statute is
as contended
the
Constitution
provision
exempting
error,
of the
that “All laws
violative
constitutional
enumerated,
property
property
taxation,
from
other than the
herein
void,” for
that
the
shall be
the reason
such construction does not have
property
“exempting property
other
effect of
from taxation
than the.
enumerated,”
simply
property
exempts
same
therein
herein
but
the
by Georgia
or a
enumerated whether owned
domesticated
corporation.
exemption
foreign
as
constitutional
To so construe this
property
by
corporation,
application
Georgia
to confine its
to
owned
species
property
deny
application
of
and
to the same class
to
foreign
by
corporation,
offend
would be to
when owned
domesticated
require
of
those
the Constitution of
impartial
complete
protection
person
property shall be
and
and
(Code, Ann.,
2-102),
the
all taxation shall be uniform
and that
authority
subjects
limits of
of
the territorial
the
same class
within
provision
levying
of that
the
and
of the
States which
Amendment to the Constitution
United
Fourteenth
deny
any person
within its
that no State shall
declares
equal protection
1-815. Hanover Insurance
the laws.
(47
(5)
Sup.
Harding,
71 L. ed.
Ct.
U. S.
Co. v.
713).
A.L.R.
4.
held is
in conflict
the decisions of this court in
What is here
with
(54
Banking
Wright,
E.
Railroad
Co.
S.
Atlanta,
L. R.
and
23 A.
Coca-Cola Co.
dealing
right
in
for
those cases this court was
with
Assembly to
domestic
General
make different classifications
stocks of
by
corporations
taxation,
foreign
and
owned
when
question
exempting
of this
not with
certain
residents
property
corporations,
taxing
owned
one class of
the same
when
property
corporations,
where
kind of
when
another class
owned
were
with
under
the law
both classes
clothed
powers, privileges,
immunities,
the same
same
duties,
obligations,
liabilities and disabilities.
affirmed,.
except
concur,
Atkinson,
J.,
All
P.
Justices
J.,
J.,
Wyatt,
Head,
specially.
who dissent.
concurs
J.,
dissenting. We
Atkinson,
Wyatt,
J.,
P.
dissent
for the reason
proper
application
for
do not think that
this is
ease
we
declaratory judgment
statute.
Head, J.,
specially.
concurring
in this
does
case
not show
“justiciable controversy.”
Lawrence,
Brown
See
MacDougald, Troutman, Schroder, Sams & MacDougald, Dan and Gilmer A. MacDougald,
CITY OF TIFTON et al. v. COOPER.
C. A. Christian, plaintiffs in error.
Briggs Jr., Carson Cooper Justice. N. C. equitable an filed Almand, against Tifton enjoin and others, to them from en- forcing provisions of a tax ordinance which assessed license against operators fees the owners and oper- of music machines by inserting therein; ated being alleged coins sought illegal being be assessed void as in excess of the amount which could levied under the of para- graph 71, a, general subsection tax 1935 as amended. alleged had municipality It was tendered to the him, lawful amount it could assess that it had refused, municipality po- been chief and that the him appear police lice issued a in the court had summons