
    PEOPLE ex rel. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO. v. FEITNER et al., Commissioners.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 4, 1901.)
    1. Foreign Corporations—Liability to Assessment—Conducting Business.
    Where a foreign corporation filed with the secretary of state Its certificate of incorporation and declaration of intention to transact business in the state, with the city of New York as its principal business place, and thereafter occupied a warehouse in said city, opening a bank account therein, and having a general manager and an office force and salesman under him, who sold goods throughout the state, the goods being delivered from the New York warehouse, and the accounts payable at the New York office, such business being carried on for 12 years, the corporation was conducting a continuous business within the state, and was liable to assessment under Laws 1896, c. 908, § 7, subjecting to taxation capital of nonresidents Invested as personal property in the state, in a business carried on therein, to the same extent as if they were residents.
    2. Same—Reduction—Debts not Due.
    Where a foreign corporation was liable to assessment on the capital invested in its business carried on in the state under Laws 1896, c. 908, § 7, it was not entitled to a reduction of its assessment on the ground of its alleged indebtedness for unearned salaries of its employés, or for rent, neither of which existed at the time the assessment was made.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Certiorari by the people, on the relation of the Sherwin-WilliamsCompany, against Thomas L. Feitner and others, commissioners of taxes, etc. From an order of "the special term quashing the writ,, relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The following is the opinion of the lower court (FREEDMAN, J.) :
    This is a proceeding taken by a certiorari to review an assessment under section .7 of chapter 908 of the Laws of 1896 upon capital invested in business by the relator, a nonresident corporation, in the state of New York. From the return made herein by the tax commissioners it appears by the testimony taken upon the hearings had before them that the relator, in December, 1892, filed with the secretary of state of New York the usual certificate required by law, in which it declared its intention of transacting-business in the state of New York, and designating the city of New York as the principal place for the transaction of such business within the state. It further appears that the relator occupies a large warehouse for the sale-of its manufactured goods at No. 347 Washington street, in the city of New York; that it there has a general manager and an office force; that it keeps a bank account in this city, in which it deposits the sums received from the sales of goods in this state, and from which it pays the expenses of conducting its business. It also appears that the corporation has traveling salesmen, who sell its goods in this state; that these salesmen, as well as the office force, are employed and discharged by the general manager aforesaid; that all the goods sold in this state are delivered from the New York warehouse; that part of those goods are sold upon credit, the accounts due therefor being payable at the New York office; and that such business has been. carried on in practically the same manner for a period of 12 years past. The assessment against the relator was made up from the following items, of the correctness of which there is no dispute: Amount due for goods sold within this state, and payable at the New York office, $41,662.51; merchandise on hand, $25,000; furniture and fixtures, $1,500; cash on hand and in bank, $808.77,—$68,971.28. The facts clearly show that the relator has established and conducted a continuous business within this state, and it is thus brought directlv within the decisions in the cases of People v. Barker, 157 N. Y. 159, 51 N. E. 1043, People v. Feitner, 49 App. Div. 108, 62 N. Y. Supp. 1107, and People v. Feitner, 31 Misc. Rep. 553, 65 N. Y. Supp. 518. Neither is the relator entitled to a reduction of its assessment upon the ground of its alleged indebtedness for unearned salaries of its employés, or for rent, as no liability therefor on the part of the relator existed at the time the assessment was made. The writ must, therefore, be quashed, with costs against the relator.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN, INGRAHAM, and McLaughlin, jj.
    A. B. Porter, for appellant.
    A. T. Campbell, Jr., for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on opinion of the court below.  