State v. Commercial Bank, 14 Miss. 218, State v. Comm'rs of R. R. Taxation, 8 Vroom, 228; S. C, 9 id. 472,.. State v. Davis, 50 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 417, Stagg v. Elliott, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 373. Stafford v. Ingersoll, 3 Hill, 38. State v. Richmond, 28 N. H. 232. State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 280....256, 401, 501 Thompson v. Patrick, 4 Watts, 415. Thompson v. Shepherd, 12 Metc. 311 Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb. 378, Steel v. Smith, 1 Barn. & Ald. 99; 159; Conkl Treat. (5th ed.) 548 Stetson v. Gulliver, 2 Cush. 494. Thorp v. Wegefarth, 56 Penn. St. 83... 646 Tiffany v. Boatmen's Institution, 18 Tiffany v. Lucas, 15 Wall. 410.. Tiffany v. Nat. Bank of Mo. 18 Wall. 409; 1 Deacon on Bankruptcy, 3d ed., 523, Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 328, 330...202, 203 Tone v. Parkerburgh Branch R. R. Tahiti Cotton Co., Re, Law Rep., 17 Eq. Talmage v. Pell, 3 Seld. 328; 7 N. Y. 327, Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275. 490, 6:22 Tappan v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 67; 1 Bishop's Cr. Pro., 2d ed., § 81; Arch United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484.. 68 United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284.. 210 United States v. January, 7 Cranch, 572 135 United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. United States Trust Co. of New York v. United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black, 61... 21 United States v. Barton, Gilpin, 439... 184 United States v. City Bank of Colum- bus, 21 How. 356....63, 64, 536, 538, 702, 785 Teasdale v. Rambler, Bee's Rep. 9.. 216 Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAllister. 48.. Ter Hoven v. Keene, 2 Barr. 99.. United States v. Morse, 3 Story, 87. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, 583, 584..12, 13, 14, 43, 100, 132, 270, 393, 419, 443, 572, 668, 674, 692, 698, 779, 780, 934 Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Blatchf. C. C. R. 426 221 Vandervoort v. Palmer, 4 Duer,677..701, 702 Van Leuven v. First Nat. Bank of Kingston, 6 Lans. 373; 54 N. Y. 671... 466 538, 543, 704, 736, 737 Van Slyke v. State, 23 Wis. 655. 924 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533..703, 807 808, 816, 817 Venango Bank v. Taylor, 56 Penn. St. 14. 650, 758, 855 Vining v. Bricker, 14 Ohio St. 331.. 153 Voorhees v. Bank of the U. S., 10 Pet 449, 473, 474.. Voorhies v. Baxter, 1 Abb. (N. Y.) 44.. Wager v. Hall, 16 Wall. 599.. Wagonseller v. Snyder, 7 Watts, 343... Walton v. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. Cas. 258 Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Paine's C. C. 410. 702 Ward v. Jenkins. 10 Metc. 591.. .576, 913 Warden v. Board of Supervisors, 14 Wis. 618.. 217 458 278 863 894 304 Warren v. Mayor, 2 Gray, 98, 99; Sedgewick on Statutes, 413, 414 (ed. of 1874). 132 Washington County Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521.. 589 Watson v. Bennett, 12 Barb. 196, 241....... 63 Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Den. 118...718, 719 Webster v. Upton, Assignee, 1 Otto, 65, 71. 274, 341, 343, 344 Weckler v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Md. 581 .63, 380, 466, 548, 650, 911 Weed v. Pierce, 9 Con. 722. Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480... PAGE. 342, 345 .121, 304 Weston's Case, Law Rep., 5 Ch. App. 614, 620.... Weston v. City of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 West St. Louis Savings Bank v. Parmalee, etc., Bank, 16 Alb. Law Jour. 473.. 66 Wheaton v. Hibbard, 20 Johns. 270. 800 Wheelock v. Kost, 77 III. 296. .471, 554 Whitaker v. Sumner, 20 Pick. 339, 495. White v. Coventry, 29 Barb 305. White v. Railroad, 21 How. 576.. White v. Ross, 15 Abb. Pr. 66. White v. Vermont and Mass. Ry. Co., 21 How. 575. 54 784 5.4 784 534 796 446 717, 720 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. Whitney v. Ragsdale, 33 Ind. 107. Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467.. 322 56 Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie, L. 536 675 Young v. Vough, 8 C. E. Green, 325... 693 CASES DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. VAN ALLEN V. THE ASSESSORS. (3 Wallace, 573.) Taxation of shares of National banks under State statutes. A State may authorize the taxation of the stock of National banks in the hands of stockholders, although the capital of such banks be wholly invested in stocks and bonds of the United States. A State statute provided that shares in National banks should be taxed "but not at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals of this State." The State banks were taxed on their capital, but not on their shares. Held, that a tax on the capital was not equivalent to a tax on the shares of stockholders, and that, therefore, the statute was void under that provision of the National Banking Act which forbids a State to impose on a National bank a tax greater than is imposed on the State banks. THIS was an action involving the question of the right of a State to tax shares in National banks created under the act of Congress of 3 June, 1864 (13 Stat. at Large, 668). By a statute of the State of New York passed March 9, 1865 (Laws 1865, ch. 97), entitled "An act enabling the banks of this State to become associations for the purpose of banking under the laws of the United States," it was provided as follows: Van Allen v. The Assessors. "S 10. All the shares in any of the said banking associations, organized under .. the act of Congress, held by any person or body corporate, shall be included in the valuation of the personal property of such person or body corporate, or corporation, in the assessment of taxes in the town or ward where such banking association is located and not elsewhere, whether the holder thereof reside in such town or ward, or not; but not at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals of this State, provided that the tax so imposed upon such shares shall not exceed the par value thereof; and provided further, that the real estate of such association shall be subject to State, county or municipal taxes, to the same extent, accordding to the value, as other real estate is taxed." Under this statute the assessors of the city of Albany assessed the plaintiff in error, Van Allen, for fifty shares, owned by him, of the capital stock of the First National Bank of Albany, and assessed all the shareholders in like manner for theirs. At the time of the assessment, the whole capital of the bank was invested in various obligations of the Federal government, in regard to all of which, Congress had enacted, that "whether held. by individuals, corporations, or associations," they should be "exempt from taxation by or under State authority." On a case stated, the legality of the assessment was affirmed by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of the State (33 N. Y. 161), and was thence taken to the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error. Mr. Evarts, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Tremaine, Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Miller, for Van Allen. Mr. Kernan, Mr. Parker and Mr. Reynolds, for the Assessors. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The decree of the Court of Appeals, from which this case comes to us, must be reversed, on the ground that the enabling act of the State of New York, passed March 9th, 1865, does not conform to the limitations prescribed by the 41st section of the act of Congress, passed June 3, 1864, organizing the National banks, and providing for their taxation. The defect is this: one of the limitations in the act of Congress is "that the tax so imposed under the laws of any State upon the shares of the associations authorized by this act, shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares of any of the banks organized under the authority of the State where such association is located." The enabling act of the State con Van Allen v. The Assessors. tains no such limitation. The banks of the State are taxed upon their capital; and although the act provided that the tax on the shares of the National banks shall not exceed the par value, yet, inasmuch as the capital of the State banks may consist of the bonds of the United States, which are exempt from State taxation, it is easy to see that this tax on the capital is not an equivalent for a tax on the shares of the stockholders. This is an unimportant question, however, as the defect may be readily remedied by the State legislature. The main and important question involved, and the one which has been argued at great length and with eminent ability, is, whether the State possesses the power to authorize the taxation of the shares of these National banks in the hands of stockholders, whose capital is wholly vested in stock and bonds of the United States? The court are of opinion that this power is possessed by the State, and that it is due to the several cases which have been so fully and satisfactorily argued before us at this term, as well as to the public interest involved, that the question should be finally disposed of. I shall proceed, therefore, to state, as briefly as practicable, the grounds and reasons that have led to their judgment in the case. The first act providing for the organization of these National banks, passed 25th February, 1863, contained no provision concerning State taxation of these shares; but Congress reserved the right by the last section at any time to amend, alter, or repeal the act." The present act of 1864 is a re-enactment of the prior statute, with some material amendments, of which the section concerning State taxation is one. It will be readily perceived, on adverting to the act, that the powers and privileges conferred by it upon these associations are very great powers and privileges; founded upon a new use and application of these government bonds, especially the privilege of issuing notes to circulate in the community as money, to the amount of ninety per centum of the bonds deposited with the treasurer; thereby nearly doubling their amount for all the operations and business purposes of the bank. This currency furnishes means and facilities for conducting the operations of the associations, which, if used wisely and skillfully, cannot but result in great advantages and profits to all the members of the association— the shareholders of the bank. |