{
  "id": 8547784,
  "name": "SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. COUNTY OF GUILFORD AND WALTER R. JAMES, Treasurer of Guilford County; SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. CITY OF GREENSBORO AND C. M. CONWAY, Treasurer of The City of Greensboro",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. County of Guilford",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7518SC516",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "211",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 209"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 4817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531309740452049
    },
    "sha256": "21db615a0e3e9cd17a78d37eae18a4e4821df868542ef52c6adf5454f6342ced",
    "simhash": "1:caef5a124c6efcc5",
    "word_count": 764
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. COUNTY OF GUILFORD AND WALTER R. JAMES, Treasurer of Guilford County SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. CITY OF GREENSBORO AND C. M. CONWAY, Treasurer of The City of Greensboro"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe following property is exempt from taxation under G.S. 105-275 (4) as it was written when pertinent to this litigation.\n\u201cPersonal property of residents of the State in its original package and fungible goods in bulk, belonging to a resident of the State, placed in a public warehouse for the purpose of transshipment to an out-of-state destination, and so designated on the original bill of lading, so long as such personal property remains in its original package or, if fungible, in bulk, and in such a public warehouse. No portion of a premises owned or leased by a consignor or consignee, or subsidiary of a consignor or consignee, shall be deemed to be a public warehouse within the meaning of this subdivision despite any licensing as such. (The purpose of this classification is to encourage the development of the State of North Carolina as a distribution center.)\u201d\nWe hold that the trial judge reached the proper conclusion. Assuming that the goods are otherwise qualified for exemption, they must also (1) be placed in a public warehouse for transshipment to an out-of-state destination and (2) be so designated on the original bill of lading. Goods designated for transshipment \u201cto an out-of-state or within the state destination\u201d are not goods designated to an out-of-state destination within the meaning of the statute. Obviously all goods stored in a public warehouse are destined for eventual shipment to some point either without or within the state, as are other goods held by a manufacturer or distributor in his own warehouse. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence that most of the goods were eventually shipped to points without the state is immaterial. The tax status of the goods must be determined by the original bill of lading at the time they are stored in the public warehouse.\nAnother section of'the statute, G.S. 105-275(3), does allow an exemption when the goods are stored in a public warehouse for transshipment to \u201can out-of-state or within the state destination\u201d and are so designated on the original bill of lading. This exemption applies only when, among other things, the goods move into this state from some place without the state.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Broughton, Broughton, McConnell & Boxley, P.A., by Robert B. Broughton and Gregory B. Crampton, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "James W. Miles, Jr., and William L. Daisy, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. COUNTY OF GUILFORD AND WALTER R. JAMES, Treasurer of Guilford County SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY (Hamilton Beach Division) v. CITY OF GREENSBORO AND C. M. CONWAY, Treasurer of The City of Greensboro\nNo. 7518SC516\n(Filed 17 December 1975)\nTaxation \u00a7 25 \u2014 ad valorem tax \u2014 goods in public warehouse \u2014 destination on bill of lading determinative\nThe trial court properly determined that goods stored in a public warehouse for transshipment \u201cto an out-of-state or within-the-state destination\u201d were not goods designated to an out-of-state destination within the meaning of G.S. 105-275(4) and were therefore subject to ad valorem taxation, notwithstanding the fact that 98% were eventually shipped to points outside the state, as contended by plaintiff, since the tax status of the goods was determined by the original bill of lading at the time they were stored in the public warehouse.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 26 March 1975 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 October 1975.\nPlaintiff instituted this action for a refund of ad valorem taxes paid defendants on personal property stored in a public warehouse in Greensboro, North Carolina, during the taxable years 1970 and 1971. Plaintiff contended that such personal property was exempt from taxation by the provisions of G.S. 105-275.\nPlaintiff has manufacturing plants in two North Carolina cities where they manufacture small electrical appliances for Sears Roebuck & Company. These appliances were shipped to a public warehouse in Greensboro for the purpose of transshipment to various Sears stores. Every bill of lading for shipment of this merchandise contained the following:\n\u201cThese goods shipped to public warehouse for transshipment to an out-of-state or within-the-state destination in original packages.\u201d\nDefendants assessed a tax on the merchandise and plaintiff paid the tax under protest, claiming that the merchandise was exempt under the statute. Plaintiff claims that 98% of this merchandise was ultimately shipped out of North Carolina and therefore applies for a refund of 98% of the taxes paid.\nThe trial judge found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment was granted.\nBroughton, Broughton, McConnell & Boxley, P.A., by Robert B. Broughton and Gregory B. Crampton, for plaintiff appellant.\nJames W. Miles, Jr., and William L. Daisy, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 239
}