New Orleans v. Stempel

Citations

• 175 U.S. 309
• 20 S. Ct. 110
• 44 L. Ed. 174
• 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1567

Syllabus

<p>Section 7 of Chapter 106 of the Louisiana Statutes of 1890, after declaring “ that it is made the duty-of the tax assessors throughout the State to place upon the assessment list all property subject to taxation,” con-, tained the following provision: “ This shall apply with equal force to any person or persons representing in this State business interests that may claim a domicil elsewhere, the intent and purpose being that no non-resident, either by himself or through any agent, shall transact business here without paying to the State a cprresponding tax with that exacted of its own citizens; and all bills receivable, obligations or credits arising from the business done in this State are hereby declared 'assessable within this State, and at the business domicil of said nonresident, his agent or representative.” The defendant in error who was domiciled in the city of New York was the owner of credits which were evidenced by notes largely secured by mortgages on real estate in New Orleans; and these notes and mortgages were in the city of New Orleans, in possession of an agent of the defendant in error, who collected the interest and principal as it became due and deposited the same in a bank in New Orleans to her credit. Held, that under the act of 1890, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the State, this property in the hands of the agént was subject to taxation in New Orleans, and that such taxation . did not infringe any right secured by the Federal Constitution.</p> <p>Conceding as matter of fact that the assessment in this case was technically in the wrong name, the error is not one that will justify equitable relief by injunction.</p> <p>Under the issue presented by the pleadings no question of overvaluation was before the court.</p> <p>The rule in such a case is that the Federal courts follow the construction placed upon the statute by the state courts, and in advance of such construction they should not declare property beyond the scope of the statut