« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
MERCHANTS AND FARMERS' NATIONAL BANK V. MYERS
(74 North Carolina, 514.) TN this case it was held that National banks are subject only to I the penalties prescribed by the United States. The opinion states the conclusion only.
FRAZER V. SEIBERN.
(18 Ohio State, 614.) IT was held in this case that shares of stock in National banks I could be taxed, although the tax against State banks was not eo nomine a tax on shares, it being, however, equivalent to such tax. The law relating to taxation of National banks has since been changed in Ohio. See 64 0. L. 204; S. & S. 763; 74 Q. L. 88.
LEE V. CITIZENS' NATIONAL BANK.
Q2 Cincinnati Superior Court, 298.) TTELD, that National banks could restrain the transfer of stocks I by one indebted to the bank, but that, under the special circumstances of that case, the transfer was good. The case is of no value; so far as its general principles are concerned, it is not law.
MINTZER V. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY.
(54 Pennsylvania State, 139.) . In this case it was held that stock in National banks is taxable I for State purposes in the hands of shareholders. The point is too well settled to be questioned.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK.
(55 Pennsylvania State, 45.) TECIDED that a tax on National banks not in entire conformity
with the act creating them was unconstitutional.
(71 Pennsylvania State, 216.) TT was held in this case that National bank shares were taxable 1 at their market value for county purposes, although certain other property was exempt. The same point was afterward settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hepburn v. School Directors, ante, p, 113.
MANUFACTURERS AND MECHANICS' BANK V. THE COMMONWEALTH.
(72 Pennsylvania State, 70.) STATE bank, under the act of Congress of June 30, 1864, beA came a National bank on the 28th of October, 1864; on the 15th of December it furnished to the Auditor-General the evidence that it had complied with the requirements of the State Enabling Act of August 2d, 1864, which was certified December 19th by the Auditor-General to the Governor, who caused publication to be made, on the 21st, that the bank had become a National institution. Held, that the bank was liable to the State for all taxes to December 19th.
(79 Pennsylvania State, 149.) TN this case it was decided that a tax on National bank shares I was not illegal because certain other property was exempt from taxation. This point is fully covered by Hepburn v. School Directors, ante, p. 113.
BLY V. SECOND NATIONAL BANK.
(79 Pennsylvania State, 458.) TN this case it was held that a National bank could recover money 1 loaned, although the amount exceeded one-tenth of the capital stock. The case was decided solely on the authority of O'Hare v. Second National Bank, ante, p. 869.
STORY v. O'DONNELL.
(31 Legal Intelligencer, 209.) ELD that shares of stock in National banks belonging to non
residents must be taxed at the place where the bank is situated, and that the State may direct the manner and place of taxing the shares of resident owners, and the Legislature of Pennsylvania not having separated such shares from the person of their owners, their situs, like that of other personal property, is at the domicile of their owner, and they are to be taxed in the town or city where he resides, not in that where the bank is located.
This is substantially only a restatement of the act approved February 10, 1868.
MAYOR V. THOMAS.
(5 Coldwell, 600.) N this case it was held that, under the law of Tennessee, as it
then was (1868), shares of stock in National banks were not taxable. The law was afterward amended.
MCLAUGHLIN V. CHADWELL.
(7 Heiskell, 389.) ELD that shares of stock in National banks were subject
to State, county and municipal taxes. The same statute was construed in Adams v. Mayor, ante, p. 143.
CLAPP v. CITY OF BURLINGTON.
(42 Vermont, 579.) N this case it was held that the owner of shares of stock in a
National bank should be taxed therefor in the city or town where he resides, and not in the city or town where the bank is located. This case attempted to give a construction to the act of Congress, and as it then read, provided that shares of stock in a National bank should be taxed “at the place where such bank is located.” Subsequently Congress declared that the words “ place where such bank is located ” should be held to mean
6 the State within which the bank is located.” Act approved Feb. 10, 1868.
VAN SLYKE V. STATE.
(23 Wisconsin, 656.) TN this case it was decided that a State tax on shares of stock in 1 National banks was valid, although the tax on State banks was not eo nomine a tax on shares, it being an equivalent to a tax on shares. The case was affirmed in Baynall v. State, 25 Wis. 112.
When this case was decided, the 41st section of the National Banking Act provided that a tax on shares of stock in National banks should not exceed “the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under the authority of the State where such association is located.” The section was afterward amended so as to omit such limitation. See Lionberger v. Rouse, ante, pp. 41, 44.