Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1854-11-23
Bank Tax9IIOn.

the case OF John WOOlsey vs. George c. Dodge,
Treasurer Of CuyahOga, Co. and the Directors Of
the Commercial Bank of Cleveland, granting
perpetual injunction against said Treasurer, to
prevent him from attempting to enforce the tax
law Of 1859. against said Bank.
TheSupreme Court Of the United States, also
holds the same opinion, which was expressed
some time since. on a similar issue. That BODY
is composed Of ssvsn Democrats and hOO Whios
In the case before US, the Couusel were
Ewing for the Complainant, and spaulding for
the Defendant.
OPINION OF TUE COURT.
The complainant, a citizen of Connecticut
hled bis bill, representing, substantially that he
Is stoekholder in the "Commercial Bank q,
Cleveland" to the amount of thirty shares Of
stock which are worth forty per cent above
par making an aggregate .yalpe Of four tbop.
sand two hundred dollars that an illegal and
unconstitutional = :ax has been imposed on said
pank exceeding eleven thousand dollars, and to
the injury of the complainant more than FIVE
hundred dollars; and the bi alleges that the
continuance Ofthc tax will impair and substan.
tally destroy the franchises of the Bank.
And the complainant alleges that orders have
been given to The de.endent, who is treasurer of
Cuyahoga county, to proceed to collect the tax,
under the tax law of 1882, which authorizes
the deiendant.if the tax shall not be paid on de-
mand on notice being given, to enter the vaults
Of the bank by force, and take therefrom the
amount OF the tax in gold and silver coin, &c
And the complainant AYERS il tie tax be levied
and paid over to the State, he is without rene
dy, as the State cannot be eued, and that his
recourse on the treasurer would be inadeqaa
&C. He therefore 2rays that an injunction may
be granted, there being no adequate remedy at
law. There are many other averments in the
bill which it is unnecessary to state.
The defendant demurs to the bill on the
ground that there is no jurisdiction.
Two positions Are assumed in the argument
against the jurisdiction of the Court.
1. "That the charter Of the Bark contains
a provision, that its afflirS shall be managed by
the Directors"
g. That "upon any other hypothesis than
an abuse of the trust by the Directors, Court
of Equity has no jurisdiction"
The authorities referred to in support Of the
above positions are undoubtedly law, but they
are considered as having no application to the
case before us. This is not writ against the
Bank. No relief against it is prayed for in the
bill. The directors are made parties, having an
interest in the matter--not hostile to the com.
plainant but in accordance with his interest, in
order that the directors, being named OF the re
cord, the entire interest Of the bank may be pro
tected from the illegal exacton threatened.
That is common proceeding in chancery
which in its decree protects the rights of par
ties on the record, whether named as complain
ants or defendants. In Story's Equity, $50
it is said, "In Equity, it is sufficient that al
parties in interest are before the Court as plain
tits or as defendants; and they need not, as a
law, in such case, be ou opposite sides Of th
record" And in 2 Story's Equity, Tag, h
says, "In courts of equity, persons having yer,
different and even opposite interests, are o(te
made parties defendants" And in Chies v
Boon, ~ Peters, 1T. the court say, 1T is with
in the undoubted powers of court of equit
to decree between co-defendants, on eydenc
between plaintiffs and defendants" So in
Sch. and Lef., 7l2.
In the case Of Platt v. Oliver ct al; 8 M
Lean 81, the complainant being citizen {
Kentucky, filed his bill against Oliver and otf
ers, praying decree against them, and ais
made defendants several other persons who
interests rested on the same grounds, as IL
rights asserted by the complainant; aud II
Circuit court decreed Os between the parti
defendant on the record, who, being citizens
Ohio, could not be made compainants, ,and III
case being carried to the Supreme court, L
deer ee was affirmed, Howard, 333.
No further reference to authorities on Il
point can be necessary. 1t is sustained in i
reports, and in elementary treatiseS.
Has the complainant made case in bis b
which gives jurisdiction to the court He
leges that he has an interest in the bank, {
ceedng four thousand dollars; that an illei
tai has been laid on the bank exceeding elev
thousand dollars, and to his injury more th
= FIVE hundred dollars; and that the collection
W. the tax will impair, if not destroy the franch
nd of the bank. The 9th section of the char
ers is relied on as containing contract, that
bank should not be taxed more than six
:; cent. upon its dividends, which tax the b
:. has heretofcre paid, and is now ready To
80 to the Treasurer Of State.
Tho complainant also alleues5 ,f the tag