UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries
Transcription
m h * FIELD vs GUILFORD 53 Atlantic, 723 .The question involved in this case was which^two municipalities the power to- tax the underground pipe lines of plaintiff company." The applicable statute provided that the real property of a corporation should be taxed in the town where located and the personal property in the town of the principal place of business . The company's office was located in the town of "C" and the town of "G" attempted to tax underground pipes in its public highways. The Court held, that since the pipe lines were personal property that they eould be taxed only by "C". It was further stated that as a second statute described corporate realty for tax purposes and did not include underground water pipes, taxation as real property was not possible. -4-
