Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. v. Board of Assessors
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. v. Board of Assessors, 47 So. 415 (La. 1908).
Cited by
- Toler v. Pacific Intern. Petroleum, Inc. 465 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
- D'Arbonne Sewerage, Inc. v. Sanders 259 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Arkansas Fuel Oil Corporation v. Maggio 141 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
- Huber v. Taussig 69 So. 2d 919 La. 1953
- Thompson v. Thompson 30 So. 2d 321 La. 1947
- Hardtner v. Dixie Oil Co. 113 So. 357 La. 1927
- Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commission 103 So. 337 La. 1925
- Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Board of Assessors 59 So. 906 La. 1912
- Lisso & Bro. v. Police Jury 53 So. 566 La. 1910
- Saint v. Martel 53 So. 432 La. 1910
- Labarre v. Burton-Swartz Cypress Co. 53 So. 113 La. 1910
- Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. v. Fitzpatrick 52 So. 118 La. 1910
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- General Electric Co. v. Board of Assessors 121 La. 116
Opinion text
PROVO STY, J. The plaintiff company is an English corporation, domiciled in Liverpool, England. It does an insurance business in the state through a local. agent. It has brought this suit to set aside and cancel its assessment for the year 1906. The record leaves it uncertain what the assessment was. of. In the petition it is stated to have been of “money loaned on interest and all bills receivable for money loaned on interest or advanced or for goods sold.” In the written opinion of the learned judge a quo it is stated as in the petition, with the addition, however, of the following: “And all credits of any and every description.” The assessment itself was not offered in evidence, nor a copy of it, nor any evidence of its contents. We gather from the testimony that the property intended to be assessed was the amount due plaintiff by its policy holders in this state for premiums upon which a credit of 30 and 60 days had been extended. Dealing with the case from that standpoint, we are bound to maintain the assessment, for the reason that the said credits are due in this state, and have arisen in the course of the business of the plaintiff company done in this state, and are therefore part and parcel of the said business in this state, and as a consequence are taxable here, as was held in the recent case of General Electric Company v. Board of Assessors, 46 South. 122 . 1 In that case every question discussed in the brief of the learned counsel for plaintiff in the instant case was considered and decided, and to go over the matter again would serve no useful purpose. The evidence shows the amount of the assessment to be excessive; but, as was very properly held by the learned judge a quo, the suit is distinctly for cancellation, and not for reduction of the assessment. Judgment affirmed. BREAUX, O. J., and MONROE, J., dissent. 121 La. 116 .