TAXATION OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 51 



of animals.^^ So one who winters or pastures temporarily liis 

 cattle in another township or county than that in which he 

 resides should have them assessed in the latter township or 

 county though they happen to be in the former at the time of 

 the year when personal property is assessed.®* This depends, 

 however, in some of the States, on whether the home of the 

 owner is also the home of the cattle, as personal property is 

 made by statute taxable where it is situated. Where the 

 owners of a herd of cattle resided in a certain county and had 

 there a ranch with house, stable and corrals, which their herd- 

 ers made their headquarters and from which they started out 

 on the round-ups, and near which some of the stock ranged, 

 and where some of the young cattle were branded, and this 

 ranch was separated from an Indian reservation only by a 

 fordable stream, this was held to be the home of the cattle, 

 though the greater part of them roamed on the reservation, 

 upon which the owners had no station house or corrals.®* 



But where cattle are bred, born, branded and raised in a 

 certain county, that is their home though they occasionally 

 wander or are driven into other counties and though the 

 home ranch of the owner from which they are managed and 

 controlled is in another county.®® The court distinguished 

 Barnes v. Woodbury, supra, saying of it : "That \i. e., Eureka 

 County] was their home and if they were found in White Pine 

 County it was only because, in the search for food, they had 

 temporarily wandered away from that home. . . . Here the 



" I Desty Taxation, 322. 



Where cattle are sold under an unrecorded bill of sale, but not delivered, 

 the seller is liable for taxes regularly assessed against him before delivery: 

 Edwards v. Irvin (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. Rep. 1026. 



"' Rhyno v. Madison Co., 43 la. 632; Smith v. Mason, 48 Kan. 586 (dis- 

 tinguishing Graham v. Chautauqua Co. Commrs., 31 id. 473); Barnes 

 V. Woodbury, 17 Nev. 383; Ford v. McGregor, 20 id. 446; Peo. v. 

 Caldwell, 142 111. 434; Knapp v. Charles Mix Co., 7 S. D. 399. But see 

 State V. Falkinburge, 15 N. J. L. 320. 



" Holcomb V. Keliher, s S. D. 438, following Barnes v. Woodbury, 

 supra; State v. Shaw, infra. 



'° State V. Shaw, 21 Nev. 222. 



