Beal-Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. Beller
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E.Martineau, Chancellor; The goods were not subject to assessment in Clay County, and the taxes had been paid in Pulaski County.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E.Martineau, Chancellor; The goods were not subject to assessment in Clay County, and the taxes had been paid in Pulaski County. The personal property of domestic corporations was assessable only in the county of the domicile of the corporation. 78 Ark. 187; Kirby’s Digest, § 6936; Acts 1907, No. 451, § 2; 97 Ark. 260. A corporation can not be forced to pay taxes twice on the same property. 97 Ark. 260. Kirby’s Dig., §6936, was amended by Acts 1907, p. 1226. The property was in Clay County seven months, and was properly assessed there. This property…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant filed its complaint in Pulaski Chancery Court, alleging it was a corporation under the laws of this State with its principal and only place of business at Little Rock, and that it was engaged there in the wholesale dry goods business; that the defendant was sheriff of Pulaski County, and as such had in his hands a warrant issued by the county clerk of Clay County, Arkansas, for taxes purporting to have been assessed against plaintiff in Clay County for the year 1911. It further states .that on..................day of March, .1911, it purchased at a bankrupt sale the stock of goods…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eoff v. Kennefick-Hammond Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Harris Lumber Co. v. GrandstaffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by3 opinions
- Arlington Hotel Co. v. BuchananSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Haynie v. Surplus Trading Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1988