
    Elizabeth Hayne vs. F. A. Deliesseline, City Sheriff.
    
    A bond held by an inhabitant of the city of Charleston is subject to taxation, though the obligór resides out of Charleston.
    Motion for a prohibition before Mr. justice Bay,- who made the following report:
    “The object of the present motion is for a writ of a prohibition to restrain the city sheriff, F. A. DeLiesseline from levying a tax upon the relator on a bond held by her for $1400,- imposed by an ordinance of the city council of Charleston.
    Mr. Holmes,
    
    in support of the motion, stated that although the relator resided within the city of Charleston, yet the obligor of the bond Mr. James King, Sen. resided out of the limits of the city, to-wit, in St. Paul’s Parish, and that it was given-for property formerly belonging to her within the same parish; admitting, • however, that ■ the income of the said-bond was spent within the limits of the city, as might appear by the suggestion filed in this case. . He next stated that it was contended that the city ordinance for 1824, embraced or made liable to taxation all bonds whether representing property in the country or city; whether the bonds themselves were in the city or country,-or whether the obli-gor or debtor resided in the country or city: Provided the income was enjoyed or spent within the limits of the city; which he contended-was not warranted-by.the terms of the ordinance itself, the city' charter- or the laws of the'land? therefore he prayed for the writ of prohibition.'
    
      Mr. Drayton,
    the city recorder, argued for the city and contended, that'as the relator was an inhabitant ofthe'city of 'Charleston, she was subject to the city ordinances as well as any property she might have within the limits of the city. That bonds at interest owned by a person resident in Charleston had been considered as property, (as in Ravenel’s case, 1 Cons. Rep. 36,) and, therefore, the subjects of taxation. That an obligee or owner of a bond might sell, assign, or transfer over a bond in the same manner as lands and negroes are sold or transferred, and the holder would thereby become the absolute owner and proprietor of such bond and all monies, principal and interest, secured thereby in the sanie manner as if land or negroes were sold. That 'the city council by the fourth clause of their charter are empowered to ' make and levy such assessments on the inhabitants of Charleston,' or those who hold taxable property within the same, for the safety, convenience, benefit and advantage of the city • as should appear' to them expedient. This, .■clause of the charier then, the recorder contended, gave the power to the city council of taxing the inhabitants of the city or their incomes, or their property as they thought most expedient, And the city ordinance for raising the supplies for the year 1824, was in exact accordance with the powers given by the above 4th clause of the city charter; for it declares among other things that all personal property con~ sisting of bonds, notes, insurance stock, six and seven per cent stock of the United States or other obligations, Sic. shall pay a tax of fifty cents on every hundred dollars, 8zc, It then proceeds to tax stock in trade, profits or incomes, and the other subjects of taxation, Sfc. mentioned in the ordinance.”
   Bay, J.

Who heard the motipn, said the whole of the arguments might be condensed within a very narrow compass, and the great question then would be, whether a bond held by an inhabitant of tlie city of Charleston, where the obligor resided beyond the boundary-street was subject to taxation or notAnd the solution of the question appeared to him to be so plain and obvious in itself, that it was hard to conceive how a difficulty could have arisen upon the subject; for in his opinion, it was totally immaterial from what quarter the funds were to come to pay the bonds held by an inhabitant of the city. The only point for the consideration of the city council was the amount of the funds actually possessed by the citizen or inhabitant, come from what quarter of the world they might, and then to fix the per centage on that amount. It was the quantum possessed, they had in view, and not the mode or manner in which the money was raised, or in what place, or on whatcontract it originated. It was quite enough for them to be satisfied that the relator lived within the limits of the city and enjoyed all the privileges and advantages of the city institutions, and was in possession of the funds subject to taxation. The clause in the city charter relied upon by the recorder was clear and express upon the subject, and the city ordinance appeared to him to have been made in conformity to the powers given in the charter; and there was not an article in the constitution that he could discover, or any law of the land, against it. He was therefore, of opinion, that the motion should be refused, and the suggestion should be dismissed.

From this opinion the plaintiff appealed.

Nott, J.

This court concur in opinion with the presiding judge below.

Motion refused.

Holmes, for the motion.

The 'Recorder, contra.  