^iji .7^.^,:jjr i-yr,: ^(f^f" ,"'.,^ n.' 



JOLT S, 1914. 



The Florists' RevieBv 



1$ 



■ ■■■a^fctoJB ■TlgW 



OHIO FLORISTS LOSE FIGHT 



AGAINST TAX 



Ohio Court of Appeals afflritis decisibn of lower court declarins: 

 all Florists' and Nursery stock taxable as {fersonal property 



.>. 



LORISTS and nurserymen of 

 the state of Ohio received a 

 heavy blow June 25, when 

 the Court of Appeals, in 

 session at Springfield, up- 



held the decision of Judge 



Jones, of the Court of Common Pleas, 

 Clark county, Ohio, declaring green- 

 house crops taxable as personal prop- 

 erty. The importance of the finding in 

 this case was understood by Judges 

 Kinder, Donnelly and Crow, who occu- 

 pied the bench, and although the hear- 

 ing of the case took place May 25, it 

 was a month from that date before the 

 decision was given. 



This decree marks the end of a de- 

 termined fight of several years by the 

 members of the trade in the state of 

 Ohio, led by the Springfield Florists' 

 Club. It was in 1907 that 

 the board of review of that 

 city first listed the green- 

 house stock of the growers 

 of Springfield as taxable 

 personal property. The ob- 

 jections of the florists were 

 of no avail and a test case 

 was undertaken. The coun- 

 ty treasurer, Balph B. Mil- 

 ler, sued the George H. 

 Mellen Co! for $272.18, as- 

 sessed the firm as personal 

 ijroperty taxes on the com- 

 pany's stock in pots and 

 benches, listed at $5,180 

 for 1907 and $5,000 for 1908. 



file a petition in error and sent out a 

 call for cooperation on the part of the 

 trade throughout the state in raising 

 funds to carry the case to a higher 

 court. Financial support was quickly 

 forthcoming and a defense fund of over 

 $800 was raised. At Springfield $250 

 was contributed by the trade; from 

 Cleveland came $210 and from Cincin- 

 nati $115 more. Donations were re- 

 ceived from all parts of the state, and 

 florists, nurserymen and vegetable 

 growers — all the greenhouse men of the 

 st^e — rallied to the support of the 

 Springfield florists. 



The outcome of the appeal was 

 awaited with interest by members of 

 the trade, not only in Ohio, but all over 

 the country, for on the decision hinged 

 the question whether or not, in the 



«< 



THE DECISION. 



Plants * * * growinsf in soil * * * * in 



First Cas^ Tried. 



The case was argued be- 

 fore Judge Jones, in the- 

 Court of Common Pleas, of. 

 Clark county, Ohio, and re- 

 ported fully in The Review 

 for November 27, 1913, 

 where the judge's decision was given 

 in full. No light on the subject could 

 be found in statute books, legal digests 

 or commentaries, for this was the first 

 case of its kind brought to trial. 



The defense, representing the entire 

 trade of the state, urged at that time 

 that in Ohio growing crops were not 

 subject to taxation. The question was 

 only one of the proper interpretation 

 of the statutes of the state. Judge 

 Jones found that the laws made no 

 such express exemption and that an 

 implied exemption was founded only 

 on a mistaken interpretation of the 

 words of code. He therefore upheld 

 the county treasurer and decided ad- 

 versely to the trade interests. 



Trade Unites Against Tax. 



Upon the return of this decision, the 

 florists and nurserymen supporting the 

 defendant instructed the attorneys to 



Sfreenhouses, eitlier in benches or in pots, 

 * * * which, * * * * according^ as the same 

 mature, are removed from said soil for sale, 

 are not contained in real estate, but consti- 

 tute personal property * * * * and are tax- 

 able as such." 



at the time when the law was enacted. 

 The judges, however, failed to take 

 this view of the matter and returned a 

 decision adverse to the trade, uphold- 

 ing the lower court, although not mak- 

 ing the statement so. broad as to 

 include both greenhouse-grown and 

 outdoor crops, as Judge Jones had done. 

 The decision of the Court of Appeals 

 in full is as follows: 



The Decision. 



"Growing plants and growing floral 

 stock which, on the date prescribed by 

 Section 5372, General Code, were at- 

 tached to, inhered and were growing in 

 earthen soil, in greenhouses, either in 

 benches or in pots or other receptacles 

 therein, "filled with earthen soil, de- 

 signed and used- exclusively for raising 

 and growing therein plants 

 and other floral stock, and 

 which, on such date, and 

 for varying periods there- 

 afterj accordingly as the 

 same matured, were re- 

 moved from said soil, for 

 transplanting or for sale 

 and delivery, are not, with- 

 in the intent of Section 

 5560, General Code, crops 

 growing on real property, 

 nor are they things con- 

 tained in real property or 

 land, within the meaning 

 of Section 5322, General 

 Code, but constitute per- 

 sonal property within the 

 purview of Sections 5325, 

 5372, 5375 and 5376 and re- 

 lated sections, General 

 Code, and are taxable as 

 such. ' ' 



An Ohio Florist's View. 



course of time, several hundred dollars 

 should be yearly added to the tax bills 

 of every large grower. 



The Appeal. 



Before an audience of florists, nurs- 

 erymen and gardeners of Springfield 

 and other parts of Ohio, Attorneys J. E. 

 Bowman and Paul C. Martin ably pre- 

 sented the case of the trade before the 

 Court of Appeals, at Springfield, May 

 25. Broadly stated, the argument was 

 that growing crops have once been 

 taxed in the valuation of the land and 

 that it would be clearly an instaiice of 

 double taxation to assess growing crops 

 of any kind as such. The grower, it 

 was contended, does not claim exemp- 

 tion for his particular class of stock, 

 but that the stock has already been con- 

 sidered in the tax value per acre put 

 upon the land, according to what was 

 clearly the intent of the legislature 



The florists of the state believe 'now 

 that they must accept the decision as 

 it stands. It is not, however, so broad 

 as that of Judge Jones. In commenting 

 on it, Koy McGregor, chairman of the 

 tax committee of the Springfield Flo- 

 rists' Club and one of the strongest 

 fighters against the tax, called atten- 

 tion to the fact that "it affirms the de- 

 cision of the lower court only in so far 

 as it applies to plants in greenhouses 

 being prepared for sale. Inasmuch as 

 the court considered and the arguments 

 covered all kinds of stock, in frames 

 and planted outside, nursery stock and 

 vegetables under glass, you will note it 

 is not the broad decision of the lower 

 court. True, it will take in almost all 

 of the stock of most growers, but we 

 do not think that boards will be in- 

 clined to make the decision more bur- 

 densome than would result through a 

 monthly average tax, which we would 



