US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

CHAPIN V. STREETER, 124 U. S. 360 (1888)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 124 U. S. 360 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chapin v. Streeter, 124 U.S. 360 (1888)

Chapin v. Streeter

Submitted January 4, 1888

Decided January 23, 1888

124 U.S. 360


The owner of an undivided half interest in personal property in possession of the whole of it, is liable for the entire tax upon it, and is not released from that liability by the payment of one-half of the tax upon the whole.

A and B were joint owners of the furniture of a hotel. A carried on the hotel and leased of B his half interest in the furniture at an agreed rent, which was not paid as it became due. The taxes on the furniture being unpaid, A paid one-half of the amount due for taxes and the officer distrained, advertised and sold to C the undivided half of B therein for the other half. A then hired this undivided half of C at an agreed rental, and the rent was paid. B brought suit against A to recover the rent due under the lease from him. Held that A was liable for the whole tax, and being in exclusive possession of the property under his contract with B, it was his duty to pay it, and that the officer was as much bound to satisfy the tax out of A's interest in the property as out of B's, and that the facts above stated constituted no defense against B's action for the rent, nor the further fact that B notified A that if he paid his half of the taxes, he would not allow it in settlement.

This was an action on a contract to recover rent. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™