Information
Digital ID
upr000101-184
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.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.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-