Maryland case law › Kinehart v. Howard

Kinehart v. Howard

90 Md. 1 (1899) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingAndrew Kinehart, Collector of State and County Taxes for the Fourth Election District of Harford County, sued Grace Adams Howard and her husband Beale R.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit brought in the Circuit Court for Flarford County, by the appellant, Andrew Kinehart, Collector of State and County Taxes for the Fourth Election District of Harford County, to recover certain taxes levied and assessed for the year 1897, upon the property of the appellee, Grace Adams Howard. The case was submitted to the Court below upon an agreed statement of facts, and from a judgment in favor of the defendants this appeal has been taken. It appears from the agreed statement of facts, that the appellee, Grace Howard, was assessed by the assessors of Harford County under the assessment law of 1896, as the owner of stocks and bonds to the amount of $82,032 ; that these stocks and bonds were located in the city of Washington, and at the time of the assessment the property stood in the name of Francis A. Richardson, of Washington City, guardian of the appellee ; that the property was acquired from George W. and Jane L. Adams, father and mother of the appellee, who were residents of the city of Washington and where their estates were administered ; that the assessors of Harford County went to Washington and made the assessment of this property from an inspection of the records in the office of the Register of Wills of that city, and that no part of the property ever stood in the name of the appellee ; that this property was taxed in Washington City and the tax paid on it in that city in the year 1897.

It is further admitted, that the appellee was born and raised in Washington City, and always resided there until her marriage sometime prior to the year 1896. After her marriage she and her husband, Beale R. Howard, resided three-fourths of each year in Washington City, and the residue of the time in the Fourth Election District of Harford County; that the appellee owned no property except what 4 she had acquired from her father and mother, and this was located in the city of Washington at the date of the assessment. The sole question; then, for our consideration, is whether the property which is assessed in the name of the appellee is liable to assessment in Harford County. . It is contended upon the part of the appellant that this property is properly taxable in Harford County, under the terms and provisions of Section 2, Chapter 120 of the Acts of 1896, which provides that all personal property in which any resident of this State has an equitable interest with the legal title to the same in some other person or corporation who is a non-resident, shall be valued and assessed for the purposes of State, county and municipal taxation to the equitable owner thereof in the county or city in which he, she or it resides, and such equitable owner or owners shall pay the taxes thereon.

Now, it is well settled, “that the personal property of residents of this State shall be subject to taxátion in the county or city where the resident bona fide resides for the greater part of the year for which the tax may or shall be levied, and not elsewhere, except goods and chattels permanently located, which shall be taxed in the city or county where they are so located.” Section pi, of Article j, of the Constitution. In Bonaparte v. The State, 63 Md. 472 , this Court

This is a preview of Kinehart v. Howard. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.