Ankeny v. Multnomah County
Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon
This ca$e comes before tbe court upon a writ of review, directed to the county court, sitting as a court for tbe transaction of county business.
Read the full summary
This ca$e comes before tbe court upon a writ of review, directed to the county court, sitting as a court for tbe transaction of county business. Tbe parties submitted an agreed, statement of facts to tbe following effect: Tbe petitioners were assessed in 1871 for certain lots of land owned by them, valued at $64,000. At tbe time of tbe assessment tbe petitioners were indebted in tbe sum of $10,000 upon a promissory note, secured by a mortgage on a portion of the said land, valued at $24,000. Tbe note was made payable to A. B.. Eddy, at tbe bank of British Columbia, in-Portland, Oregon; and…
1Opinion of the Court
Úpton, J.
The statute (Gen. L. p. 628. sec. 1, amended in 1865) provides that tbe assessor shall “deduct the amount of indebtedness within this state of any person assessed.”
The ease presents the question whether tbe amount specified in a nóte, .which is payable at a particular place in this state, should be deducted, notwithstanding the owner of tbe note may be absent from and a non-resident of tbe state.
In Johnson v. Oregon City (2 Oregon, 327) it was held in tb-is court and on appeal, that the place where a promissory note is taxable, depends on the residence or location of the *387owner of tbe…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lee v. . SelleckNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Bowen v. . NewellNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Troy City Bank v. . LaumanNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wetmore v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1877
- Cole v. KerrOhio Supreme Court · 1834
- County of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R.United States Circuit Court · 1882