*1 . TERM1888. 590 for Plaintiff in Error.
Citations
v. MOORE.
SHOTWELL
THE STATE OF OHIO.
OP
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
Argued
5,
March
1889.
January
No.
1889.Decided
ownership
relate to
may
make the
'A
whhjhit may
proper;
period
year
any day
days
of the
think
or
'
particular day
returns
of a
which
their
'the selection
by taxpayers
pre-
are to be made
does not
assessment
periods
year.
making
as of other
of assessments
clude the
Ohio,
requires
of the
Statutes
which
Section 2737
Revised
assessor,
day
Monday
preceding
the second
return to the
as of
to.
monthly
April
year,
things
among
in each
statement
same,
average, amount
for the time he held or controlled
effects, withiji
credits,
year,
preceding
of all
or other
within the
into,
bonds or other securities of the
that time invested
or converted
taxed,'
may
to the extent he
hold or
United
or of this
day preceding
control
or securities on said
the second Mon-
such bonds
purchase
April,
any
indebtedness 'created in the
of such
not be
from the credits under the
bonds or securities shall
deducted
”
green-
section does not tax the citizen for the
fourteenth item this
held at
backs or other
States securities which
have
credits,
year,
money,
during
time
but taxes.him
or other'
used,
capital
according
he has had and
to' the
held,
amount so
and is not in conflict
3701 of the Revised Stat-
with §
exempting
obligations
utes of the United States
of the United States
State, municipal
authority.
from taxation
or local
was an action
the defendant in
error as
brought by
This
treasurer of Harrison
Ohio,
County,
against
error
the Court Common Pleas for
to recover
tax assessed
him.
against
Judgment
.
Common Pleas
was reversed
defendant,
Court,
Circuit
of reversal was- affirmed
This writ
Court
State.
of error was sued
Supreme
case is stated in
out to the latter
judgment.
opinion.
Mr. T. JD.
Mr. íiiohard A.
Lincoln
plain-
Morrison
Opis
tiff in
12 Cush.
v.
Boston,
44;
error cited:
v.
Ogden
59
v.
32
Walker,
Indiana, £60;
Elston,
County
Montgomery
55
2T; Stillwell'-v.
MeCulloeh
Indiana,
Corwin,
Indiana, 433;
v.
SHOTWELL
591
Opinion of the Court.
Baraje
v.
Supervisors, People By 142; Savory 12 Met. v. v. 1Y8; (Mass.) 5 Georgetown, Gréene Mumford, St, (cid:127)R. S. C. Am. "Dec. 4Y2; ; I. Y3 Y9 V. 15 Ohio Kellogg Ely, Bank 64; Columbus v. 3 1; Himes, Ohio St. Exchange v. ; 2Y9 Latimer 6 Ohio St. Bank Morgan, Champaign- Coumty 42; Ohio St. v. Smith, v. Y Ohio Watterson, 3Y St. Payne David Watson, Mr. K. General of Ohio, Mr. Attorney A. whom was Mr. (with D. John M. Hollingsworth Garven on y: for defendant in error cited Bank Commerce brief) 2 York, Black, 620; New Banks v. New York, 16; Y.Wall. y. y. .Bank Y Wall. 20; Mitchell Supervisors, Leavenworth v, S. 206; 91 U. Co. Marshall County, Holly County, brings y. 281; 52 Jones 10 Seward Mississippi, Coumty, Nebraska, n 154;,Dixon y. 69Y; Exchange Nebraska, 23 Coumty Halstead, y. 3 1; N. T. Hines, Bank Ohio St. '88 v. 142; People Ryan, y. Duncan,--4 Wall. 210; Railroad Tax Witherspoon y. Cases, 5Y5; 92 U. S. Games v. 14 Dunn, Pet. 322; Pelton y. 101 Bank, S.-143; National IL National Cummings Bamh, IT. v. 103 IT. 101 -S. 153; National Kimball, lionk S. Y32; Todd, Y: 38 Connecticut, Corwall 443; Olmsted v. 31 Barber,. Minnesota, 256'; Yamhill Poppleten-Y. County, 33Y. Oregon; delivered theof the court.- opinion Justice Miller
Mr. This writ of error to the Court of the State of Súpreme Ohio for review a that court concern- brings up taxation ’authorities ing imposed 'the..'state upon in error, as the Shotwell, owner of a B. Stewart cer- tain ariiount United notes, Statea.legal-tender Treasury “ called The case was tried in-the commonly greenbacks'’” n Ohio, Court Common Pleas Harrison County, without a court, and that court consent jury, by parties'; found the dsions of fact and under the law, conoJ following of the state statute, provision subsequent all upon been have based : proceedings TEEM, 1888.
Opinion the Court. of. , cause waived jury, “The same having parties with view court, parties oh for trial came of the court decision questions excepting in court trial, involved haying requested the law of fact found from the conclusions in separately state writing been law, testimony heard, conclusions'of having of fact as íollows: as conclusions the court finds has is and for been a resi the defendant many years That Ohio that on the ; of Harrison County, Saturday dent preced 1881, ’82, ’83, second Monday April, years ing had on town- bank, defendant ’85, ’84, to his as a credit in said Cadiz, county, general depositor, 1881, $30,900 ; ’82, $26,900; sums: In ’83, the following $18,560 in ’85, $4700; that said ; Satur ’84, $29,550; out he checked the said balance so in. of said each years at his the same was to his credit request paid standing called securities commonly him ‘greenbacks;’ *3 the to after so him money occasion paid that on each counting n he his name wrote thereon, the same enclosed package, officer of the bank, the same and returned the requesting .to bank’s safe for which him, the was same him place-the Qn did out no carry money occasion defendant done. next of the week and in the early part bank building; the bank he returned to demanded of said in each years and. and he was same him, which opened his given package, n officer of the bam that the it an asking and delivered to his credit as general amount should depositor, placed defendant occasion the drew out that on each done; which was obtain non-taxable him intent to securi due with the balance on such but that on balance; evade taxation ties, thereby between, the time which .intervened .the occasion during each as a general withdrawal and subsequent deposit depositor absolute owner of the with was so money he bona fide to his that he did and the same drawn, subject .disposal; said list for taxation either of any part years did him nor list the he monthly average so money paid for he or controlled the same held amount the.time credits, or other within preceding year, ' v. SHOTWELL Opinion of the Court. that time invested in or
effects within converted into said so him drawn out of said bank, securities and that by amount so invested defendant in such securities by within the out of years, respectively, preceding drawing said was the amount so drawn out at the end of the moneys that the auditor said said sums several year; county placed of said upon duplicate county year except ’85 Avith year $4949, erroneously placed fifty per cent added $7420, thereto, whereas the data before making him and which he should have been controlled authorized $4700, with cent would make only fifty added, per and the court $7050; further finds taxes _of said if sums, chargeable upon several aggregate same are and that said $2317.05, dupli cate was delivered to the treasurer of said for col lection.
.(cid:127)‘And the court that, the facts so being opinion upon the laAVof found, this case is with it is defendant, there- considered that the defendant recover of the costs herein taxed at $20.60; expended, ruling court as to the law the case and to the so judgment rendered the plaintiff excepts.”
The case was taken the, to the Circuit Court of by appeal Coin;t where the decision of the of Common Pleas was reversed, and rendered for the amount' judgment tax. sued for Shotwell. This was carried to the against Supreme Court of the State, which the decision the Circuit Court Avasaffirmed. To review that this writ of error is prosecuted.
The error is that the tax levied and enforced assigned *4 this Avas notes of the is United which States, upon forbidden Eevised the by Statutes.of the United States following language: All 3701. stocks, bonds, notes and other Treasury . “Sec. of the United States shall be from taxation obligations exempt or under by state or or local municipal authority.” And that the of Ohio erred in Court Supreme holding 20, of the Eevised- Statutes of the June State, passed ÍT2737 VOL. CXXIX 38 — 1888; TERM,
£94 Opinion of the Oourt. not in violation 1880, of, effect is nor 1, take January the section above to, quoted.1 repugnant not defendant error that It is controverted counsel for by the the were not under United 'States law greenbacks con- statute, that if the when or Ohio' taxation, properly it extent invalid. But such taxation is to that authorizes strued, : and are as follows Sections 2736 shall, person required annually, property to list 2736. Each Sec. or, days assessor, receiving within ten a blank.for from the statement, thereafter, assessor, by the verified make out and deliver to credits, bonds, oath, personal property, moneys, investments his of all the otherwise, annuities, possession, stocks, companies, his or or stock joint] Mbnday-of April control, day preceding the of that second required year, to list either as owner or holder he is which executor, administrator, husband, trustee, thereof, parent, guardian, asor receiver, officer, factor, partner, accounting agent, . . or otherwise. forth, first, truly distinctly statement shall and set Such- “Sec. second, horses, thereof; neat and valúe the number of number asses, cattle, third, thereof; and and the number of mules value fourth, fifth, sheep, thereof; ; thereof the number of and value value sixth, thereof; pleasure hogs, the number the number of and the value seventh, thereof; carriages (of kind), the total value whatever value, personal preceding property, all not included in the or articles watches, classes; thereof; succeeding eighth, the number of and the-value thereof; ngith, piano-fortes organs, the number of and the value merchandise, person tenth, goods average such which value of eleventh, required merchant; is list as a the value property broker, banker, twelfth, stock-jobber; required is as a or person' such to list articles such materials and manufactured value manufacturer; thirteenth, required moneys person hand or to list as fourteenth, order; on-.deposit subject credits herein- the amount of as bonds, fifteenth, moneys defined; invested in the amount all before annuities,' sixteenth, stocks, otherwise; companies, joint stock - he held or controlled average amount or time credits, effects, same, year, preceding all or other -within the bonds, in, into, or other securities of that time invested converted Within taxeU, the extent he hold or -this ofor Monday day preceding the second or securities on said control such bonds purchase of such bonds or April; and created Of indebtedness item under the fourteenth credits shall not' deducted securities from'the -may person section;' making such statement exhibit but the of this section, items first nine covered assessor thereof, in such case oath the assessor to affix the value allow the'person that-regard only be in has making the statement shall fully said nine items". covered exhibited *5 v.
SHOTWELL Opinion of the Court. to us for' consideration is whether the question presented ata-jf- tax in this levied case the authorities the State was by notes issued
upon legal-tender injf%e by government of Shotwell. hands
It is shown of facts that conclusively by finding prior to which the assessment of for taxation day relates the laws of Shotwell had in his on Ohio, bank, by gen eral order, Cadiz, to his the town of subject deposit, in Harrison, 1881, 1882, 1883, years previous, 1884, and the sums of on the taxes here 1885, in money but that, were it is claimed him assessed; controversy by or two fixed statute, he in each had, day previous by of those drawn out the balance his years, general deposit account a check, in each case and, amount receiving it in notes, had them into a legal-tender put package, enclosed an with the bank as a envelope, spe- placed his thereon, cial name the bank deposit, writing requesting it in its for safe which was him, put done. from' the en- assessment an Arguing proposition tire the laws of must be Ohio, made on the .year, partic- statute, ular mentioned and that these day greenbacks were his it is insisted, with day, earn- great estness that the amount of the counsel, thus on package spe- cial on that could not be taxed the state authori- deposit day ties. To there to be general proposition does appear valid if the done had been in the objection thing ordinary business, course of and the conversion of his general deposit into from private package greenbacks, bank; exempt were free from taxation, illegal fraudulent motive. purpose it is But since found as a matter of fact that whole transac-. tion was made taxation on purpose evading on the it was general deposit exchanged and that there was no greenbacks, permanently the amount of the in the bank to his changing counsel, and, as order, such, liable to it is argued by that it was a fraud the revenue laws of the State Ohio.
For-all mentioned the same years process gone TERM, 1888.
Opinion.of the Court. within a week after with, instance, every through error took same assessment, greenbacks *6 and he had on re- placed special deposit- immediately the bank as a to his stored them to general deposit, subject in remanded the amount condi- order; words, been liable to taxation if .the in which it would have tion to not limited of assessment were particular period mentioned in the statute. of court below as a.fact to
It does not need finding evasion, one, was an and a discreditable of the show this is, made successful. if it could be It taxing laws — alone therefore, on this illegal ground pur urged — made in bank for which the transactions were pose in liable to should hold the error taxation for court' plaintiff this thus converted. Several decisions on the amount in the this are cited brief of courts, view, state holding in are and relate of counsel. They directly -point, attempts character to effect a similar evasion of taxa-’ same precisely pn liable otherwise thereto. these are. tion Among Ins. v. Marshall 52 and Co. Savings County, Holly Springs 10 Nebraska, 154; Jones v. Seward 281; County, Mississippi, From the County, and v. Yamhill Oregon, Poppleton thé latter case following language: we-quote “ a notes and mort- If large taxpayer, having the same, in taxes on order escape payment gages, a' out a sum of. the borrows money person residing with his-creditor mort- deposits such-.notes .county, pn taxes avoiding, payment purpose gáges, taxable such notes are where same, in such such transfer is fraud on resides; deposit taxpayer of the county.” the revenues v. in this court Mitchell Commissioners And Leavenworth S. denounces conduct 91 U. similar precisely
County, case, error lan that of plaintiff following guage: *7 proceedings; held
court- that the was so transaction that it inequitable not would be sustained in a court of chancery. (cid:127)Instead of method of the tax in the pursuing collecting
n present as case, the treasurer of the had a do right of the laws an Ohio, action at law brought against the It is now asserted that taxpayer.. the although opinion of this court Mitchell v. Leavenworth Commissioners of that the assessed holds can have relief in County party a no. court still he when at have, sued law, or equity, might of the where issue could be heard in a manner court of law of as from court distinguished equity. ‘ All these the decisions show courts look and it indefensible, transaction as consider an eva- improper the of sion of the citizen to share the duty taxes pay on necessary due support government./which justly his property.. whether these
Waiving question considera- equitable would constitute a defence an action law tions to collect in suit,- the tax we whether the proceed statute inquire made all for taxes Ohio relate an iron rule to assessments by second day preceding Monday April, prop- to. on that and- that Is such erty. possessed particular day, only. of the law of the a construction State of ? Ohio a one proper TERM, 1888.
Opinion of the Court. be that a make It is to conceded ownership relate tó to taxation any day, days, or. property subject think the selection of the it may proper, period year,, .that are be made which returns tax day particular of their assessment for does purposes payers property of assessments as necessarily making precludé like Ohio, of the State of many year. per periods from the business States, most the other collects .haps to taxation year preceding- property speci of a tax to be date, fied the elements an assessment paid by that, and it date, has year succeeding that an .instances fact assessment which several recognized be assessed to assumed' that all should those only property named who of it on the date was not were the owners precise of land a' Assessments are made once in just apportionment. as the value of im ten with such additions year every years, So in case merchants engaged provements justifies. in. ^ on hand stock selling might buying goods, either the or the smallest of any be period during largest a tax intended be eithér, If it were gov preceding. year, them owned held by erned the amount of dur to them either 'or to such .would unjust year evidently ing State. evil statute in Ohio the ascer- To .avoid this provides amount or tainment were in which such and for parties dealing, goods for taxation on that basis. kinds of. Many assessment be of this character.' business must with which- facility negotia- legislature, perceiving (cid:127)/The *8 were, and credits which liable to securities and other ble rights time the taxation exchanged greenbacks might and after the assessment made, assessment taxation- -was for- had been, in which in the form they applied replaced over statute, (cid:127)this form principle, by special provisiomof ' a wise So far as In this showed forecast. property. they does tax citizen can which- this not see, we the statute does held at time dur- have may any greenbacks which or credits, him other money, taxes but year, ing SHOTWELL v:
.Opinion of Court. .the which he has had and used, capital according average amount' he has so held. monthly we understand to be the
Such and effect sec- purpose tion counsel, to wit, subdivision sixteen of complained by' of the Eevised Statutes of Ohio. not We do see any. § State to arrive at the objection endeavoring average or amount value of the credits, or other moneys, effects of the citizen to taxation within subject preceding, á and in similar manner the year, amount ascertaining of his either securities, state or for the national, same period, to fix taxation, a basis for assessment. subject order It is a much more mode of certainly equitable determining how- much of his property assess- year preceding ment is liable to taxation, how much is and inore exempt, effects the of the Federal as nearly statute well' as of Ohio, that'of the State the one and to tax: the exempt than a rule other, which assumes that the condition of the means at a certain hour of a in the shall constitute basis particular day year of'his taxation for the entire year.
It needs no other evidence the rule adopted by Ohio is better the case us, before on.e'than means to taxation large possessor subject during' but one every day year escape payment tax all if trick resorted to in the present case be successful; cases which we have cited from the as courts, other state well as the referred to opinion court, show the wisdom of the clearly Ohio in legislature itself the effects of the rule here against contended protecting for. ' statutes, Section 2737 Ohio prescribes character of the statement .to be made by persons holding or credits, investments, süch as are described, which are declares that such statement' subject forth, shall set truly distinctly among things, “ “ order,” on hand moneys -to credits as amount of defined.” hereinbefore Subdivision 16 statement requires monthly average *9 TERM, 1888. .OCTOBER Opinion: Bradley, J.
Dissenting held or within the same, time he controlled the preced- n credits, or effects within that of all other kig year, or or other invested converted bonds in, into, 'time securities or this not to taxed, of the United States extent bonds on said securities, hold control such or he day indebtedness the second Monday any April; preceding shall not be of such bonds or securities created the purchase of this fourteenth item from the credits deducted section.” make this we State of Ohio to
Of provision right to Its that State tax doubt. is not to enable have no it to but to tax States, securities of United permit to investments, on hand and moneys it the securities while combines the same Order, exemption We and those of State. know government general from whole which forbids of ncr taking principle means of as best as- Of business year already past period much shall be how pay required certaining taxable, to be and how much he which is admitted property the non-taxable securities of the State and of deduct for shall the United States. in error in under which the
As was method more he was with no than taxed, this case was as charged dowe law, under a wise and liable pay equitable of Ohio, error in the Court see Supreme it is accordingly
Affirmed. dissent Ido Justice'Beadley: I from judgment. Me. law, but it is not defend Mr. Shotwell; question, law of' n Ohioseems to me act repugnant Congress from Which the securities the United taxa- exempts tion. law The that a man has on second is this: is which he
Monday April for taxation that if a man chooses Now, return year. buy month one before States securities one as act of he has a to do time, it, Con- perfect right ' GOODWIN V FOX.
Syllabus. declares United States securities shall not gress taxed, *10 the State has no to tax him for them. right But legislature around, of the State of Ohio undertook to in that law this- get way; a man they shall say be from' taxation exempted for United States securities owned on the himby second in in to the Monday April, only time that he has proportion held so that if them, he has held them one he would only one 36oth if exempted, only amount; whilst, part man of whom the held them them, taxpayer bought he would no days, he-would all; be taxable' get exemption for the consideration which he received for the securities and- which he held on the second in in- Monday April. Therefore, Ohio United' States securities are taxation only exempted.from in a limited in manner, is, to the time proportion they have held. All other is treated If differently. been it seems to unconstitutional; me that this anything is.
GOODWIN v. FOX. APPEAL THE FROM CIRCUIT OF THE UNITED COURT STATES FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Argued No. 18, 21, 168. January 1889. Decided March By agreement parties, acknowledged -written between two one that he was $70,000. indebted to the the sum of all “over and above discounts (cid:127)” every nature; and set-offs of name and and it was stated that the latter up satisfy former, take was to certain other indebtedness of the conveyed that the former had goods, to the latter a stock of and' store- “ notes, fixtures, accounts, land, piece power books and and a with ” forthwith, at such times and such manner as the latter should deem “ fixtures, best, notes, goods,” premises to convert the said accounts and money, apply proceeds payment indebtedness,” to the into of said interest, farm; agreed and also a certain and it was with if the for- should, date, indebtedness, pay mer six months from said within the lat- farm, but, reconvey payment, might default of such ter would ” ‘‘ comprised mortgage conveyance the certain foreclose the farm conveyances agreement. agreement and the mentioned were made, piece right the title to the of land and the farm arid indebtedness, plaintiff, land, came the hands of into who sold the notes are from taxation by exempt will not but a court of state or authority; equity municipal such promote any its extraordinary powers use knowingly SHOTWELL v. Opinion Court. as this devised to his escape proportionate scheme share the burdens of taxation. His if he has remedy, any, in a court of law.” The circurostadbes of that case are like those in precisely the case before converted, us.' in the same did, manner as about nineteen Shotwell thousand dollars in on current funds in his bank into the same general deposit them in a value which he greenbacks, placed package of the bank for vault This put safekeeping. 98. On March 3, he withdrew this February following, pack-, notes to his credit. This was age, deposited general for the sole done taxation escaping upon money, <,t bank. Th case differs from the one only in the fact that the at bar revenue officer to cdlect proceeded tax assessed distress, defendant to compelled to a resort court but this equity enjoin