personal estate,1 and usually applies to everything which is visible, tangible, and capable of valuation, and which is the subject of ownership; thus licenses are property; and corporate franchises are property, and taxable as such.4 b. PERSONAL PROPERTY.-The capital stock and the accumulated surplus of a corporation and the shares of its capital stock 5 are taxable as personal property. Mortgages and other securities for indebtedness, money secured on mortgage or otherwise, moneys due on contract for the sale of real estate, and obliga7 1. Primm v. Belleville, 59 Ill. 142; Jacksonville v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 138; Hunsaker. Wright, Ill. 147; State v. Collins, 43 N. J. L. 502 2. See People v. Hibernia Sav, etc., Soc., 51 Cal. 243; 21 Am. Rep. 704; People v. Rains, 23 Cal. 133; Primm v. Belleville, 59 Ill. 142; People v. Worthington, 21 Ill. 171; 74 Am. Dec. 86. In Covington Gas Light Co. v. Covington, 84 Ky. 94, it was held that the terms "personal estate, and any property of any kind," include gas pipes, meters, lamp posts, and the like. Vessels are subject to state taxation. Oteri v. Parker, 42 La. Ann. 374. And see State v. Southern Steamship Co., 13 La. Ann. 497; Howell v. State, 3 Gill. (Md.) 14; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273. Growing crops are private property, and subject to taxation as such. People v. Gerke, 35 Cal. 677. Turnpike Roads.-In Frankfort, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Com., 82 Ky. 386, it was held that a statute authorizing the taxation of all property, authorized the imposition of taxes on turnpike roads, for county purposes. Intoxicating liquors of domestic manufacture, not kept for illegal sale, are subject to taxation as property. bar v. Boston, 101 Mass. 317. Dun Dogs. Under the Texas constitution, dogs are not recognized as property subject to an ad valorem taxation. Exp. Cooper, 3 Tex. App. 489. · Abstract Books.-In Leon Loan, etc., Co. v. Board of Equalization (Iowa, 1892), 53 N. W. Rep. 94, abstract books having an actual market value were held subject to taxation as personal property. 3. Drysdale v. Pradat, 45 Miss. 445; Coulson v. Harris, 43 Miss. 728. 4. See TAXATION (CORPORATE). 5. See TAXATION (CORPORATE). 6. Gallatin County v. Beattie, 3 Mont. 173; Tax Cases, 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 117; People v. Board of Supervisors (Mich. 1888), 38 N. W. Rep. 639; State v. Redwood Falls Bldg., etc., Assoc., 45 Minn. 154; People v. Whartenby, 38 Cal. 461; Doland v. Mooney, 72 Cal. 34; Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc. . Yard, 9 Pa. St. 359; Perry County v. Troutman, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 427. And see Hunter's Appeal (Pa. 1886), 10 Atl. Rep. 429; Loughlin's Appeal (Pa. 1887), 10 Atl. Rep. 832; Com. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 104 Pa. St. 89; Davenport v. Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 12 Iowa 539; People v. Coleman, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 482; State v. Gaylord, 73 Wis. 316. Under the New Jersey statutes requiring property of corporations to be assessed as are the estates of individuals, the amount of loans to stockholders of a building and loan association, which the notes, bonds, and mortgages represent in the return of the secretary, are assets, and assessable as the property of the corporation. State v. Hornbaker, 41 N. J. L. 519. Where lands are sold, and the grantor reserves merely the right to repurchase, the grantee is not liable to taxation as a mortgagee of the premises. Thomas V. Holmes County, 67 Miss. 754. 7. People v. Ogdensburgh, 48 N. Y. 390; Ouachita County v. Rumph, 43 Ark. 525; State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502. And see Perrine v. Jacobs, 64 Iowa 79. Under the Illinois constitution, the legislature has power to impose taxes upon all credits, whether for lands sold or otherwise, and moneys loaned as well as money due for land are taxable, whether the land has been conveyed or not. People v. Worthington, 21 Ill. 170; 74 Am. Dec. 86; People v. Rhodes, 15 Ill. 304. Where the legislature has expressly exempted mining claims from the operation of revenue laws, it cannot be presumed that it intended to indirectly subject them to taxation, by tions for the payment of money or instruments of indebtedness,1 are usually deemed to be personal estate, and subject to taxation as such. Within the revenue laws debts due have been held to be credits and taxable as property.2 But the bonds or other obligations of a state are not included in a general designation of the taxable property of the state,3 though the public stocks and securities of states and municipalities are sometimes made taxable as such.4 Easements and other incorporeal or inchoate rights have been held not taxable as personal property.5 The term "property," as used in some of the statutes, has been held not to include credits, in levying a tax on the price paid for them. State v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56. 1. Catlin v. Hull, 21 Vt. 152; Hamersley v. Franey, 39 Conn. 176; Irvin v. Turner, 47 Ga. 382; Carreker v. Walton, 47 Ga. 394; Hunter v. Page County, 33 Iowa 376; New Orleans v. Mechanics', etc., Ins. Co., 30 La. Ann. 876; 31 Am. Rep. 232; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania (State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds), 15 Wall. (U. S.) 300. And see Hayne v. Deliesseline, 3 McCord (S. Car.) 374; Deane v. Hathaway, 136 Mass. 129; Redmond v. Rutherford County, 87 N. Car. 122. Deposit notes, bearing interest, taken. by a mutual insurance company from the members of the corporation, are taxable for county purposes, as moneys at interest; and so of stocks in which premiums paid by the insured are invested. Fire Ins. Co. v. County, 9 Pa. St. 413. Bonds and other certificates of indebtedness of foreign corporations, in the hands of residents of the state, are taxable. Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354; Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377. Judgments, with reference to which proceedings in error are pending, are included within a provision requiring the listing for taxation of all securities due or owing. Cameron v. Cappeller, 41 Ohio St. 533. 2. Jones v. Seward County, 10 Neb. 154; Jacksonville v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 138; State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502; People v. Arguello, 37 Cal. 524; New Orleans Canal, etc., Co. v. New Orleans, 99 U. S. 97; Perry County v. Troutman, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 427; Maltby v. Reading, etc., R. Co., 52 Pa. St. 140; Connor v. Waxahachie (Tex. 1889), 13 S. W. Rep. 30; Ferris v. Kimble, 75 Tex. 476. And see Glou-cester v. Gloucester, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 542; Perrine v. Jacobs, 64 Iowa 79; State v. Craig, 51 N. J. L. 437; Rheinboldt v. Raine, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 544. Choses in action are property subject to taxation, even though secured by mortgage. Lick v. Austin, 43 Cal. 590; Lamar v. Palmer, 18 Fla. 147. Debts, securities, and obligations are taxable, though they are not due. People v. McComber (Supreme Ct.), 7 N. Y. Supp. 71; People v. Arguello, 37 Cal. 524. A debt due from an intestate is properly taxed to the creditor, though the amount is in dispute if it is conceded to be as much as that taxed. Deane v. Hathaway, 136 Mass. 129. The reassurance, reserve, and premiums of life insurance companies, being collectable, are subjects of taxation. Republic L. Ins. Co. v. Pollak, 75 Ill. 292. 3. Miller v. Wilson, 60 Ga. 505; State v. Assessors, 35 La. Ann. 651. And see Newark City Bank v. Assessors, 30 N. J. L. 13; State v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 89 Ala. 335. Bonds of Other States.-See infra, this title, Other Governmental Agen cies. 4. See Hall v. Middlesex County, 10 Allen (Mass.) 100; Newark City Bank v. Assessors, 30 N. J. L. 13. The bonds of a foreign railway corporation are not "public stocks and securities," within the meaning of the Massachusetts tax acts. Hale v. Hampshire County, 137 Mass. III. In Pennsylvania, all public loans, except those issued by the United States, are taxable. Wilkesbarre Deposit, etc., Bank v. Wilkesbarre, 148 Pa. St. 601. 5. De Witt v. Hays, 2 Cal. 463; 56 Am. Dec. 352; Fall River v. Bristol County, 125 Mass. 567; Matter of Lefever, 5 Dem. (N. Y.) 184. Thus rents not due on leases for years are not taxable as personal prop vestments, or money, but to apply to visible property only.1 The legislature, may, however, impose taxes upon credits and money due as the personal estate of the creditor, or may tax such cred its and money on hand by name.3 c. REALTY. Real property embraces every species of title, whether inchoate or complete, and whether executory or executed.4 erty. People v. McComber (Supreme 38; Rheimboldt v. Raine, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct.), 7 N. Y. Supp. 71. Ct. Rep. 544: Insurance Premiums - Income. — In Iowa, annual premiums of an insurance company, being in the nature of an income, are not subject to taxation as personal property. Burlington v. Putnam Ins. Co., 31 Iowa 102; Dubuque v. Northwestern L. Ins. Co., 29 Iowa 9. A mere claim for damages, until it has become fixed, is not taxable. Lowell v. Street Com'rs, 106 Mass. 540: Arnold v. Middletown, 41 Conn. 206; Hancock v. Whittemore, 50 Cal. 522. 1. Johnson v. Lexington, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 521; Covington v. Powell, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 226; Louisville v. Henning, 1 Bush (Ky.) 381; People v. Hibernia Sav., etc., Soc., 51 Cal. 243; 21 Am. Rep. 704; Pullen v. Raleigh, 68 N. Car. 451; Vaughan v. Murfreesboro, 96 N. Car. 317; Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St. 153; Mifflintown . Jacobs, 69 Pa. St. 151; Fox's Appeal, 112 Pa. St. 337; Com. v. Delaware Div. Canal Co., 122 Pa. St. 594. 2. People v. Worthington, 21 Ill. 171; 74 Am. Dec. 86; Deane v. Hathaway, 136 Mass. 129; Hamersley v. Franey, 39 Conn. 176; Johnson v. Oregon City, 3 Oregon 13; Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, 1 Wash. Ter. 159; People v. Ogdens burgh, 48 N. Y. 390; Carroll v. Perry, 4 McLean (U. S.) 25. In Bank of U. S. v. State, 12 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 456, it was held that a loan by a bank incorporated in one state to a bank incorporated in another state, is subject to taxation under a law subjecting to a certain tax, loans at interest by individuals. 3. Pollard v. State, 65 Ala. 628; Shotwell. Moore, 129 U. S. 590; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Alamance County, 84 N. Car. 504; State v. Carson City Sav. Bank, 17 Nev. 146; Bank of Newberry v. Stegall, 41 Miss. 142; State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502; Peavey v. Greenfield, 64 N. H. 284; Perry County v. Troutman, 144 Pa. St. 361; Blickensderfer v. School Directors, 20 Pa. St. Under such a provision they are taxable whether they bear interest or not. Perry County . Troutman, 144 Pa. St. 361. Bank Deposits.-In Campbell v. Riviere (Tex. 1893), 22 S. W. Rep. 993, it was held that money deposited is not a debt against the bank, but is money on hand, and liable to taxation. In Campbell v. Wiggins, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 1, it was held that a depositor of money subject to sight draft cannot escape taxation thereon as cash by showing that the bank did not have that amount of money on hand. Sums received from depositors are deposits within a law imposing a tax upon deposits, whether they have been invested or not, and without reference to their value as compared with any other standard. Provident Inst. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 611. Merchants' Statements.-Under the Missouri tax laws, merchants' statements are taxable by a school corporation. State v. Kinney, 48 Mo. 373. "Debts due from solvent debtors," made taxable by statute, mean the amount of the debt which may be realized or collected; the general solvency of the debtor is not referred to. Lamar v. Palmer, 18 Fla. 147. Definition of Credit.-Under the Minnesota statutes, the term "credits" is defined as meaning and including every claim and demand for money, or other valuable thing and other security or sum of money receivable at stated periods, due, or to become due, and all claims and demands secured by deed or mortgage due, or to become due. State v. Rand, 39 Minn. 502. Bonds. In Sawyer v. Nashua, 59 N. H. 404, it was held that money invested in bonds is taxable, under an authority to tax money at interest. 4. Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County, I Wash. Ter. 159; Soulard v. U. S., 4 Pet. (U. S.) 511. See also PROPERTY, vol. 19, p. 285; REAL PROPERTY, vol. 19, p. 1028. It includes all lands under water, and all buildings and other structures or things erected upon, affixed to, or growing on, the land. The term "property in lands," is not confined to title in fee, but is sufficiently comprehensive to include any usufructory interest, whether it be a leasehold or a mere right of possession.3 It is competent for the legislature to treat real estate Corporate Franchises. - Corporate franchises are not realty. People v. Tax Com'rs, 104 N. Y. 240. 1. Lowell . Middlesex County, 6 Allen (Mass.) 31. A reservoir dam, and land which it covers with water, are liable to be taxed. Pingree v. Berkshire County, 102 Mass. 76. In Lowell v. Middlesex County, 152 Mass. 372, it was held that land held in fee, lying under a canal, is taxable to the owner thereof. 2. Smith. New York, 68 N. Y. 552; People v. Cassity, 46 N. Y. 46; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pittsburgh, 104 Pa. St. 522; Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S 762. And see Quincy Bridge Co. v. Adams County, SS Ill. 615; McGee v. Salem, 149 Mass. 238; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Houston County, 38 Minn. 531; Lowell v. Middlesex County, 6 Allen (Mass.) 131. All things appurtenant or affixed to the realty are usually required to be taxed with it, and as a part of it. See Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baker, 135 Ill. 545; Boston, etc., Glass Co. v. Boston, 4 Met. (Mass.) 181; Com. v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 12 Allen (Mass.) 298. And see infra, this title, Upon Whom Imposed. In Scully v. People, 104 Ill. 349, it was held that an assessment upon lands and also upon rents arising therefrom as a credit, is erroneous, the latter element of value being included in the former. Pipes and mains for water, gas, etc., laid in streets or elsewhere, are real estate and taxable as such. Willard v. Pike, 59 Vt. 202; Oskaloosa Water Co. v. Board of Equalization, 84 Iowa 407; In re Des Moines Water Co., 48 Iowa 324; Paris v. Norway Water Co., 85 Me. 330; Monroe Water Co. v. Frenchtown Tp. (Mich. 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 268; Tide-water Pipe Line Co. v. Berry, 53 N. J. L. 212; State v. Berry, 52 N. J. L. 308; People v. Martin, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 193; Capital City Gas Light Co. v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 51 Iowa 32. Bridges are taxable as real estate. Alexandria Canal Co. v. District of Columbia, 1 Mackey (D. C.) 217; State v. Mississippi River Bridge Co., 109 Mo. 253; Hudson River Bridge Co. v. Patterson, 74 N. Y. 365; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., S9 Mo. 98. In Cass County v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 25 Neb. 348, and Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. School Dist. No. 1, 25 Neb. 359. it was held that a bridge was not taxable as part of the roadbed, right of way, or superstructure. Railways Street Railways. Railways, either in streets or elsewhere, are lands, within the tax laws, and taxable as such. People v. Tax Com'rs, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 687; Neary v. Philadel phia, etc., R. Co. (Del. 1887), 9 Aul. Rep. 405; Appeal Tax Court v. Western Maryland, etc., R. Co., 50 Md. 274; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pittsburgh, 104 Pa. St. 522; South Nashville St. R. Co. v. Morrow, 87 Tenn. 406; People 7. Cassity, 46 N. Y. 46; Union Trust Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 346. So, also, the superstructure, etc.. of elevated railroads. People v. Tax Com'rs, 82 N. Y. 459; People v. Tax Com'rs, 101 N. Y. 322. But as to the track of a street railway company, see State v. Ramsey County Court, 31 Minn. 354. Right of way, as used in a statute authorizing assessment and taxation, was held not to relate to a mere intangible right, but to the strip of land appropriated by the railway company. Keener v. Union Pac. R. Čo., 31 Fed. Rep. 126. Telegraph Line-In Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 509; 40 Am. Rep. 99, it was held that a telegraph line is taxable as real property although it has also paid a privilege tax. 3. State v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56; People v. Donnelly, 58 Cal. 144; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; Los Angeles . Los Angeles City Water Works Co., 49 Cal. 638; People v. Tax Com'rs, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 687; Cincinnati College 7. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St. 276; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 21 Nev. 247; Carroll. Safford, 3 How. (U. S.) 441; mortgages as interests in lands, for the purpose of taxation, and to give them a situs for that purpose, at the place where the mortgaged property is situated. Several persons may have a property which is subject to taxation in the same land.2 The interest of the occupant of a mining claim is property, and may be subjected to taxation.3 A mere license or right of entry is not taxable as real estate against the licensee. 3. Occupations and Privileges. (See infra, this title, Occupation, Business,and Privilege Taxes.) 4. Instrumentalities of Government-a. IN GENERAL.-Speaking generally, it may be said that instrumentalities of government are not taxable; nor can the states tax instrumentalities of the federal government, or vice versa, this, on the principle that the government is not to be impeded in exercising its powers.5 b. OFFICES AND OFFICERS.-A public office or officer is not Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (U. Rights in a reservoir of water are real estate, and taxable as such. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton, etc., Co. v. Gilford, 64 N. H. 337. And the same rule applies to water power. State v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 26 Minn. 229. Lease for Ninety-nine Years. In Washington Market v. District of Columbia, 4 Mackey (D. C.) 416, a lease for ninety-nine years was held taxable as though held in fee; a statute providing that such leases should be considered as determinable fees. In Wilgus v. Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 556, the lease for ninety-nine years was held not to be taxable as real property. 1. Detroit v. Board of Assessors, 91 Mich. 78; Knight v. Boston (Mass. 1893), 35 N. E. Rep. 86; State v. Jones, 40 N. J. L. 105. 2. State v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baker, 135 Ill. 545; In re Major, 134 Ill. 19; People v. Board of Assessors, 93 N. Y. 308. There may be several distinct tenements in the same building under the same roof, as well where one is over the other as where one is beside the other. Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St. 276; South Congregational Meeting House v. Lowell, 1 Met. (Mass.) 538; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575; Cheeseborough v. Greene, 10 Conn. 318. See infra, this title, Upon Whom Imposed. 3. State v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56; People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645; People v. Donnelly, 58 Cal. 144; People v. Frisbie, 31 Cal. 146; People v. Cohen, 31 Cal. 210; The owner of land, who has conveyed it, reserving the coal thereunder, and the right to mine the same, may be taxed for such mining right, though there is no proof of the existence of any coal on the land. Major v. Pavey, 134 Ill. 19. Where coal or other minerals in the ground are sold or reserved separate from the land, they are not personal property, and cannot become such until severed from the land itself. Consolidated Coal Co. v. Baker, 135 Ill. 545. In Arizona,mining claims in government property are taxable as personal, not real, property; but mines for which patents have been issued are taxable as real estate. Waller v. Hughes (Arizona, 1886), 11 Pac. Rep. 122. 4. Hughes v. Vail, 57 Vt. 41; Clove Spring Iron Works v. Cone, 56 Vt. 603. 5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 315, is perhaps the leading case upon this point, the holding being that a Maryland law imposing a tax on the operation of a branch of the United States Bank was unconstitutional and void. This case was followed by Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738, and subsequent cases have recognized the principles expounded in these cases, as lying at the foundation of the law. For their application to various instrumentalities and things, see the following subdivisions of this section. |