begins to run on sealed instruments generally from the due date, or that of a payment or new promise, and bars an action after ten years from such period, except in the case of judgments recovered within the State, which may be kept alive 20 years.

16. ILLS.-On the 1st of January, 1867, I took a mortgage (in due form according to the laws of Illinois) for the purchase price of real estate payable in installments all of which were paid as they became due, excepting the last three, which remain unpaid, and were due as follows: March 1st, 1872, March 1st, 1873, March 1st, 1874. At what time will I be prohibited by the statute of limitations (of Illinois), from collecting the same by foreclosure?

A. We have the impression that the limitations for suit upon a sealed instrument in Illinois is twenty years, the same as in this State (N.Y.). At any rate, the lien on the real estate will hold untilt he bond is paid, and probably long after the patience of our correspondent is exhausted.

17. PA.-What length of time is required by the laws of Pennsyl vania to outlaw an ordinary business note made in that State? From some dates I have I am under the impression that an act of the Pennsylvania Assembly dated March 27, 1813, under the head of statute of limitation, plaintiffs were debarred from suing on a promissory note after six years, unless they were "beyond seas," in which case they had only six years after their return. By an act of July 30, 1842, the provisions of the act were not to extend to cases where defendants were beyond the seas," and that suit could be brought within six years after the return of the defendant. It is my impression that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that "beyond seas" meant "without the United States." (2 Dallas, 217; 1 Yates, 329; 33 Pennsylvania Statute Reports, 374.) Have you any information showing that a note dated April, 1861, is not outlawed, the maker of the note having been a resident of the State of New Jersey since 1861 ?

A. It was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Gonder v. Estabrook (1859), that the statute of limitations is not prevented from running in favor of a defendant by his residence without the State, unless he is "outside the United States." The note in question therefore seems to be barred by the statute.

SURETIES.

1. As an interested party I would ask as to the law or the custom regarding the responsibility of a co-bondsman; what would the effect be if the directors of a bank knowing of the failure of one of the bondsmen by his bankruptcy proceedings neglected to obtain a substitute?

Are they not bound to have another without delay? Do they not by neglect of their duty in not heeding the public announcement lose both bondsmen ?

A. The solvent bondsman might insist on his name being withdrawn, or a solvent party being substituted for the bankrupt, but the bank if it chooses to run the risk may go on with the case as it stands. The solvent man is not released by such a

course.

2. A buys a restaurant, paying partly in cash for it and giving notes and chattel mortgage for the balance. B indorses these notes and takes a second chattel mortgage on the business for his security. After a while (six months) B fearing to lose money, forces A to turn over every thing to him (E) by bill of sale, and releasing A from further responsibility by satisfying both mortgages and carrying on the business himself, B also paying A's notes indorsed by B, as they came due, and finally sells the business, keeping proceeds for himself. B claims to have lost money by the transaction and sues A for such. The question now arises : Can B lawfully sue A for any possible damage he may have sustained? or rather, has not B, by securing himself by mortgage, and afterward releasing A by canceling the mortgage and carrying on the business himself, and disposing of it, lost all claim against A ?

A. This question cannot be positively answered without exact information as to the terms upon which the business was conveyed by A to B. If the expressed consideration of the transfer was that B should discharge the first mortgage and pay the notes upon which he was indorser, then he has no further claim upon A, even if he did lose money. But unless this, or something equivalent, was the bargain. B may be able to hold A to further liability on the notes.

TAXATION.

1. Can a State tax merchandise imported and on which duty has been paid, as long as said merchandise is sold in original packages? In other words, can a State put a tax on the sale of a case of imported wine when sold in the original package?

A. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that no State can tax or prohibit the sale of imports in original packages.

2. Has a country merchant (commission or other) the right to receive deposits subject to check at sight, and issue therefor exchange on

New York, free of charge, without being subject to the government tax as a banker, a regular national bank paying government tax being located in the same place?

A. The Internal Revenue act defines the business to which the tax applies as follows:

SEC. 3,407. Every incorporated or other bank, and every person, firm, or company having a place of business where credits are opened by the deposit or collection of money or currency, subject to be paid or remitted upon draft, check, or order, or where money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes, or where stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes are received for discount or for sale, shall be regarded as a bank or as a banker.

This is very plain, and if a merchant has a place of business where money is received on deposit subject to be paid upon a check at sight, he comes within the definition.

3. A considerable amount of money owned in New York has been for some time past loaned in Illinois and other western States on real estate security. Can you refer us to a decision in the United States Courts, or in your own State Courts, in which such loans are held not to be taxable in New York, it being supposed that the money is taxed in the States where loaned ?

A. The Supreme Court in 1868, in The People v. Gardner, 51 Barb., 352, decided that a resident of this State (N.Y.) cannot be assessed here for money invested on bond and mortgages in Wisconsin and Illinois. And the Attorney-General, in an opinion given as recently as April 24, 1879, quotes this as the recognized law in this State.

4. I have invested $10,000 on bond and mortgage in Wisconsin, for the estate of a deceased person, formerly a resident of this State (N.Y.). Is it taxable in this State?

A. In the case of Trowbridge ex rel. Commissioner of Texas, 4 Hun., 595, the Supreme Court of this State declared the taxability of North Carolina State bonds owned here, on the ground that they were "evidence of a fixed indebtedness," at the same time exempting shares of foreign corporations as being "simple representatives of capital or property employed in business in other States." The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Upon the principles here laid down, and on the statute requiring "all personal property within the State" to pay tax, the bond and mortgage above specified appears to be taxable here. We assume that the heirs or legatees beneficially interested in the estate are resident here.

5. Are corporations liable for State tax whose entire capital is invested in real estate on which they are already heavily taxed by the city? The blanks for returns under the new tax law give no opportunity to deduct for real estate.

A. A case of this kind is one of double taxation, but the new law does not seem to provide any remedy, and on the contrary specifically requires that the real estate shall pay local taxes, while the tax on capital shall be transmitted direct to the State Treasury.

6. I have been rendered a bill for personal tax in Brooklyn. Please inform if it can be legally collected. If so, what constitutes personal tax?

A. Our correspondent must have had notice several months ago that he was assessed a certain sum as personal tax, because this is served on every one thus named in the list. If he was not worth that amount above his personal liabilities, he could have had it reduced, or wholly vacated by a timely call on the assessors. It is now too late, and he must pay it. The rate per cent. is precisely the same as that levied on real estate in the same ward.

7. John Doe owns 30 shares bank stock and real estate free from incumbrance. He gives his note for two thousand dollars, and buys railroad stock. Does this constitute a debt which should be deducted from assessment of bank stock?

A. A taxpayer's just debts are to be deducted at all events, and his bank stock cannot be made to pay tax unless the deduction can be made and leave it as personal property over and above such just debts. A different rule would be at war with the spirit of the recent United States Supreme Court decision, that bank shares must not be subjected to any greater rate of taxation than other property, the Court expressly holding that this prohibition applies to the assessment as well as to the rate of tax.

8. Are the deposits of Savings banks in this city (N. Y.) liable to taxation as personal property of the depositor.

A. All of a man's personal property over and above his indebtedness, not invested in United States securities is liable to taxation in this State (N.Y.), but only a small portion of such personal property

is actually taxed, the owners not being required to make any return of it, and the assessors not being very sharp to include it. There is also gross favoritism in this respect.

9. Some 12 years since I was appointed administrator to a small estate, which I closed up and paid over the amounts to the widow and orphans. Somebody now, calling himself an internal revenue collector, in looking over the records of the Surrogate's office, finds I gave bonds in $15,000, and notifies me there has been no legacy tax paid on said estate. Am I personally liable? The widow is dead and left nothing. I am guardian for the orphans and only have a little.

A. This collector may have overlooked the provisions of the act imposing the legacy tax, "that property passing by will or the laws of any State or Territory to the husband or wife of the person who died possessed, shall be exempt from tax or duty." Also, that any such legacy or share passing to a minor child shall only be taxable on the amount above $1,000. Only in case the amount which went to the orphans, therefore, exceeded that sum, is any duty payable; but, in that case, hard as it is, the tax is collectible at any time within 20 years after it became due, and the collector may bring suit against the person having custody of the property. The administrator is not personally liable, though as the law made it his duty to pay the tax, we are afraid that if the matter went to suit the court would impose the costs upon him.

10. Is there a law in force in this State (N. Y.) taxing all church property? If not, please state the exemptions.

A. Every building used for public worship in this State, the lots on which they are situated, and the furniture belonging to each of them, are exempt from taxation in this State. Colleges, academies, school-houses, court-houses, jails, poor-houses, almshouses, houses of industry, etc., are also exempt from taxation.

11. A resident of this city possessing no other personal property than furniture, etc., necessary for his family, can he be taxed if such is worth no more than about $500? The tax commissioner told me I had to pay, but such ruling is against common sense, as I cannot be without such furniture, while my earnings are hardly sufficient to support my family.

A. All personal property exempted by law from execution is exempted from taxation. If our correspondent is worth no per