
    Circuit Court for Multnomah County,
    February Term, 1872.
    A. P. ANKENY et al. v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY.
    A note payable at a specified place in this state is an “indebtedness within this state, ’ ’ within the meaning of the revenue law, notwithstanding the owner of the note may be a non-resident and absent.
    This ca$e comes before tbe court upon a writ of review, directed to the county court, sitting as a court for tbe transaction of county business. Tbe parties submitted an agreed, statement of facts to tbe following effect:
    Tbe petitioners were assessed in 1871 for certain lots of land owned by them, valued at $64,000. At tbe time of tbe assessment tbe petitioners were indebted in tbe sum of $10,000 upon a promissory note, secured by a mortgage on a portion of the said land, valued at $24,000. Tbe note was made payable to A. B.. Eddy, at tbe bank of British Columbia, in-Portland, Oregon; and tbe said Eddy was not in Oregon nor a resident of tbe state.
    Both the assessor and tbe county court refused to deduct tbe indebtedness secured by the note and mortgage from tbe valuation of tbe petitioners’ property.
    
      Shattuoh &, Killin, for tbe petitioners.
    
      A. C. Gibbs, district attorney.
   Úpton, J.

The statute (Gen. L. p. 628. sec. 1, amended in 1865) provides that tbe assessor shall “deduct the amount of indebtedness within this state of any person assessed.”

The ease presents the question whether tbe amount specified in a nóte, .which is payable at a particular place in this state, should be deducted, notwithstanding the owner of tbe note may be absent from and a non-resident of tbe state.

In Johnson v. Oregon City (2 Oregon, 327) it was held in tb-is court and on appeal, that the place where a promissory note is taxable, depends on the residence or location of the owner of tbe note, and not upon the place where the paper, which is the evidence oí the indebtedness, may be temporarily deposited.

The district attorney claims that, upon the principles there laid down, the indebtedness under consideration follows the person of Mr. Eddy, the owner of the note.

The counsel for the petitioners claim that, by stipulating in the note for a particular place oí payment, the parties have limited the character of the contract in this particular, and that this note docs not evidence an indebtedness which the owner of the demand can carry out of the state at his will.

It is certain that the words fixing a place oí payment do itileci the nature of the contract in some respects. They limit the rights and liabilities of the parties in several particulars, and the place of payment is a material part of the contract. (Bowen v. Newell, 13 N. Y. 290; Troy City Bank v. Lawman, 19 N. Y. 477; Lee v. Selleck, 33 N. Y. 615.)

If the ease turned upon the same point that was before the court in Johnson v. Oregon City, the decision there made would settle the question in favor of the comity; but the statute should not receive the same construction it would have borne if the legislature, in defining the exemption, had used the words, “the amount of indebtedness that is taxable in this state.” It is not in the power of the holder of the note to change the place of payment; the petitioners have by their contract reserved the right to transact the business in this state, and to prevent a cause of action from arising upon this note in any other state. If the terms of the contract arc carried out, the money that is payable will be in tills state after it has left the hands of the makers of the note, and will be subject to the payment of any taxes the state may impose upon it.

' I think by the terms of the statute the amount of the note should be deducted from the petitioners’ assessment; and a judgment will bo entered to that effect.  