This is an action brought by C. R. Parish & Company, a partnership consisting of C. R. Parish and T. J: Parish, duly formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of dealing in furniture, household goods, etc., with its principal office and place of business in the city of Columbus, Ohio, where said partners reside, against O. B. Kauffman, as treasurer of Greene county, Ohio, seeking to enjoin him from the collection of certain taxes.
rfhe said plaintiff in March, 1907, established a branch store in Xenia, Ohio, for the purpose of carrying on its business, and employed one L. A. Parrett as agent to conduct the samé. Said-Parrett, as agent, sold the goods and furniture furnished him for cash and upon deferred payments secured by chattel mortgage upon the goods sold. At stated periods said agent reported to the plaintiff his sales, and turned over all moneys collected on account of sales, together with the notes and chattel *343mortgages taken in plaintiff’s name, as security for deferred payments upon goods sold by him. The notes and chattel mortgages so reported and delivered to-the plaintiff were received and held by T. J. Parish, the manager of the said partnership, who duly made out copies and forwarded to the county recorder for filing, and continued to hold and keep said original notes and mortgages in his possession and under his control.
The said Parrett, agent, was authorized by the plaintiff to receive payments for the plaintiff upon the said notes so secured by chattel mortgage, and kept by said T. J. Parish, manager, and remit the same to plaintiff, at Columbus, Ohio.
In August, 1907, the board of review of Greene county added to the return of the plaintiff for taxation for the year 1907 in said Greene county, as credits, the notes and said chattel mortgages so reported and returned by said Parrett to the plaintiff, in the sum of $2,988, and the treasurer is about to proceed to collect from the plaintiff -the taxes thereon.
The defendant claims that because the property upon which the chattel mortgages were taken is in" Greene county, and because the agent of plaintiff in charge of the store in Xenia, who made the sale, makes all the collections due on said mortgages, remitting the proceeds .to the plaintiff, -that therefore the notes and mortgages are returnable in Greene county.
- It is not a question of the taxation of the property upon which' the mortgages were taken, for that is returnable by the purchaser. The defendant here is seeking to charge the plaintiff with taxes upon notes and mortgages in the plaintiff’s possession in Franklin county. The fact that the plaintiff has an agent in Greene county authorized to receive payments does not make him the legal custodian of the notes and mortgages, when in fact they'were i*n the possession and under the control of T. J. Parish, as manager, in Columbus, Ohio.
•If the agent had neither possession nor control of the notes and mortgages, he could not make any return of them for taxation. When the agent of plaintiff made the sale of the property and turned over the notes and mortgages to the plaintiff, his rights and duties in respect thereto were at an end, except for *344convenience payments could be made to him for remittance to the plaintiff,- but that authority in no way empowered him to make .any return of the notes and mortgages for taxation.
The notes and mortgages taken by Parrett and delivered to the plaintiff were intangible partnership property, in the possession and control of the plaintiff’s managing partner in Columbus, Ohio, and to claim that because the property upon which the chattel mortgages were given to the plaintiff to secure the notes so held by the plaintiff was in Greene county, and thereby fixed the situs of return there, is simply to claim that the situs of the chattel property upon which the mortgage is given determines the place of taxation, arid not the location of the partnership.
Such is not the law. The residence of plaintiff who has possession and control of the mortgages and notes- so attempted to be assessed for taxation, determines the situs for taxation. Worthington v. Sebastian, Treas., 25 O. S., 1; Brown v. Noble, 42 O. S., 405; Sommers v. Boyd, Treas., 48 O. S., 662; Lee v. Dawson, Treas., 8 C. C:, 365; Grant v. Jones, 39 O. S., 507; Myers v. Seaberger, 45 O. S., 232. ,
The plaintiff claims that these notes and mortgages were reported for taxation in Franklin county. Whether or not they were included in their return for taxation there is of no oon-•sequence in this case. The only question presented ⅛: Are the notes and mortgages so held by plaintiff, as shown by the evidence in this case, taxable in Greene county?
It seems clear to me that they are not, and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief asked for in its petition and an injunction against the treasurer restraining the collection of the 'same,-and an order and decree may be taken according to the prayer thereof. . -
Decree accordingly.