HAIGHT
v.
RAILROAD COMPANY
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The facts in this case are properly stated and the law correctly decided by the learned judge of the Circuit Court. The provision in the condition of defeasance of the mortgage, has reference only to covenants between mortgagor and mortgagee, and is usual in every mortgage; being put there in order to secure the mortgagee, who may not be in possession, from demand for taxes incurred while the mortgagor was in possession. It can have no possible application to the income tax of bondholders. The 122d section of the revenue act of 1864, was enacted for greater facility of collection of the tax. These corporators often contract to pay for the bondholder all such taxes; but when they have not so contracted, they are authorized to deduct or withhold the amount of the tax. In all assessments of income tax the citizen is credited with the amount thus detained; so that there is no double taxation.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1916)
-
R.R. Co. v. Collector, 100 U.S. 595 (U.S. 1879)
-
Nolte v. Hudson Nav. Co., 8 F.2d 859 (2d Cir. 1925)…Justices Clifford and Miller, but it was not in relation to the question above discussed. See, also, Case of the State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232, 21 L. Ed. 146; Jackson v. Northern Central Railway, 7 Wall. 262, 19 L. Ed. 88; Haight v. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 15, 18 L. Ed. 818. The courts hold in such eases that the tax is not imposed on the corporation, but on the bondholders, and that upon the bankruptcy of the corporation the amount due from it on account of taxes so imposed and collected by it is not a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence