‘ 54 FEDERAL ;¤mPOBT1¤B.
,c.`•L` .v‘· •·Av.• ·v
charges, with the demand for the collaterals, was not suincient, for
the collateral was held lawfully for the amount of advances made to
the plaintiffs. The refusal to surrender the goods shipped, without
a tender for the full amount taxed, was rightful. Hence there was
no conversion entitling the plaintiff to recover.
Judgment, therefore, is for the defendant.
C. N. Nansou Lumens Co. v. TowN or Lonmnu.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Wsconain. 1884.)
1. TAXATION—INTERSTATE Commn¤n—Loes m Tnsnsrr. _
Logs cut on lands owned by a Minnesota corporation in Wisconsin and hauled
down to a river, and piled on the ice to await the opening of the river, to be
floated down into Minnesota, to be there manufactured into lumber, cannot
be considered as in transit from one state to another in a commercial sense,
and may be assessed and taxed in Wisconsin.
2. Bamr—Co¤srrrUrro¤sn1rr os- Wrsoousm Bryrurm or 1882. *
Sections 1 and 2 of the Wisconsin statute of 1882, regulating the assessment
and taxation of logs belonging to non-residents, is not unconstitutional as vio-
lating the principle of uniformity in providing for an assessment in April,
while logs belonging to residents are assessed in May, nor as unjustly discrimi-
nating against non-residents. ~
8. Sams-Doum.n Taxsrrozr.
The fact that lands on which logs are grown are assessed for taxation in May,
and the logs cut therefrom are assessed for taxation in the following April,
does not render the tax on the logs a second tax. _
4. SAME-—TAXATION IN Arvormrn STATE—REMGVAL or Pxornnrr.
Where a tax is lawfully levied on property in one state, the constitutionality
of such tax is not affected by the fact that such property is again subjected to
taxation in another state to which the owner has removed.
At Law. ’
J. N. cf: I. W. Castle, Fayette Marsh, and Clapp ct McCartney, for
plaintiff.
George D. McDill, for defendant, with J. N. Searlee, of counsel.
Bmw, J. This is a general demurrer to the first and third counts
of the plaintiifs complaint, in an action at law to recover back taxes
paid to the treasurer of the defendant town. The facts in the case
are briefly these: The plaintiff is a corporation created under the
laws of Minnesota, and doing business at Stillwater, in that state. It
is, and for many years has been, the owner of large tracts of pine-
. timbered lands in northern Wisconsin, and is engaged in the lumber-
ing business, which consists in cutting pine logs from the timber of
p said lands during the winter season in each year, and hauling the
same upon sleds to the different streams tributary to the Saint Croix
river, in Wisconsin, and placingthem upon the banks of said streams
and upon the ice thereof, between the banks, and there awaiting high
water in the spring to transport them down said streams. intothe