TAXATION OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 55 



mals known and reported to him as sold for slaughter, and 

 another statute provided that persons removiiig cattle from 

 one county to another should be protected from the payment 

 of inspection fees in the latter county by the inspection cer- 

 tificate from the former, it was held that one who bought for 

 slaughter cattle that had been brought from another county 

 was not exempt from the tax under the former statute, al- 

 though the cattle were accompanied by the certificate of in- 

 spection provided by the latter one.^^ Where cattle were 

 shipped into the State under a bill of lading which allowed 

 their being fed there for an indefinite time and then being 

 shipped to a point in another State at a through rate from the 

 original point of shipment, the balance of the freight not to 

 be paid unless they were so re-shipped, it was held that they 

 were taxable in the State while being fattened there at the 

 owner's pens.** 



In California the assessor of taxes must demand a state- 

 ment from the owner of migratory cattle whether the stock 

 will be removed from the county during the year ; and unless 

 such a demand is made, the duty of making the statement is 

 not imposed upon the owner.®* Whether persons who drive 

 flocks of sheep across a county do it to pasture and graze 

 them there, so as to charge them under an ordinance licensing 

 persons engaged in the business of grazing sheep, is a ques- 

 tion of fact in each particular case.'^" 



A horse and wagon, owned by a non-resident of the State 

 and used in mercantile business, are not taxable at the place 



"' Limburger v. Barker (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. Rep. 616. 



"Waggoner v. Whaley (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. Rep. 153. 



" Peo. V. Shippee, 53 Cal. 675. 



And, in Utah, the certificate of assessment in one county, upon delivery, 

 exempts from further taxation for that year in another county: Taylor 

 V. Robertson, 16 Utah 330. 



"Inyo County v. Erro, 119 Cal. 119, citing El Dorado County v. Meiss, 

 100 id. 268, where one who took sheep temporarily into the county, for 

 the purpose of shearing them, without procuring a license, was held not 

 to be violating the ordinance. 



