Suttles v. Associated Mortgage Companies

193 Ga. 78
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 10, 1941
DocketNo. 13814
StatusPublished

This text of 193 Ga. 78 (Suttles v. Associated Mortgage Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Suttles v. Associated Mortgage Companies, 193 Ga. 78 (Ga. 1941).

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

1. (a) According to previous decisions by this court construing Georgia statutes, a promissory note executed by a resident of this State, but owned by a non-resident and held by the latter at his domicile out of this State, is to be taxed here only if it is derived from or is used as an incident of property owned or of a business ■ conducted by the non-resident or his agent in Georgia; and this is true although the note may be secured by a mortgage on land situated in this State. Collins v. Miller, 43 Ga. 336; Carhart v. Paramore, 44 Ga. 262; Cary v. Edmonson, 44 Ga. 651; Armour Packing Co. v. Savannah, 115 Ga. 140 (41 S. E. 237); Armour Packing Co. v. Augusta, 118 Ga. 552 (45 S. E. 424, 98 Am. St. R. 128) ; Armour Packing Co. v. Clark, 124 Ga. 369 (52 S. E. 145); Columbus Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Gullatt, 189 Ga. 747 (8 S. E. 2d, 38).

(b) Where notes and mortgages are so owned and held by a non-resident, 'the maintenance of an office and agency in this State for the purpose merely of protecting the security and ultimate collection or liquidation of the indebtedness, the papers themselves being sent into this State only when needed for cancellation, renewal, or foreclosure, would not be using them in this State, within the rule enunciated. Collins v. Miller, supra; Cary v. Edmonson, supra.

2. Under the facts of the instant case and application of the rule stated, the notes and mortgages in question were not subject to the assessments made, and the judge did not err in granting an injunction restraining enforcement of the tax executions.

3. Since the judgment complained of was demanded by the evidence admitted without objection, it is unnecessary to deal with the assignments of error on the admission of other evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except DucJcworth, J., disqualified. Spalding, Sibley, Troutman & Brock, E. H. Sheats, W. S. Northcutt, Standish Thompson, for plaintiff in error. Hvrsch, Smith, Kilpatrick, Clay & Cody, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Columbus Mutual Life Insurance v. Gullatt
8 S.E.2d 38 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Collins v. Miller
43 Ga. 336 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1871)
Carhart & Brother v. Paramore
44 Ga. 262 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1871)
Cary, Bangs & Woodward v. Edmondson
44 Ga. 651 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1872)
Armour Packing Co. v. Mayor of Savannah
41 S.E. 237 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Armour Packing Co. v. City Council
45 S.E. 424 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Armour Packing Co. v. Clark
52 S.E. 145 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 Ga. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suttles-v-associated-mortgage-companies-ga-1941.