Myers & Houseman v. County Commissioners

Citations

• 83 Md. 385
• 35 A. 144
• 1896 Md. LEXIS 81

Syllabus

<p>Taxation—Cattle—Stock in Trade of Merchants— Taxation of Goods Exported to Foreign Countries—Constitutional Law—Notice to Owner of Assessment of Property Not Returned.</p> <p>Appellants, cattle dealers, received shipments of cattle bought by them every Wednesday at the stock yards, where they seldom remained longer than one day, being then disposed of to purchasers or exported. They had on hand for one or two days every week an average of $20,00o worth of cattle. Held, that such average quantity of cattle being the stock in trade of the parties, is liable to taxation as property within the State just as goods bought by other merchants, since the cattle are not brought into the State tor a temporary purpose, but to be held until sold, and it is only owing to the course of trade that they are generally disposed of in one day.</p> <p>The fact that a part of such cattle assessed for taxation are purchased in other States and are exported to foreign countries, is no objection to the assessment since they are not taxed as exports, but as part of the general mass of property in the State in the usual manner and while they are not in course of transportation.</p> <p>Although some of the cattle were purchased with the intention of exporting them to foreign countries, the assessment of them when held as above stated is not levying a duty on exports within the provision of the Constitution of the United States, because goods do not cease to be part of the general mass of property in the State subject to taxation until they have been shipped or entered for transportation.</p> <p>The mere fact that property has been bought for the purpose of exportation does not exempt it from liability to taxation when such property is not in course of transit.</p> <p>The words “capital stock” in the return of the property owned by the appellants were intended to refer to the property of the parties and not to money.</p> <p>The assessment to the appellants was not a transfer from the tax-boo