, 1865-10-27

National Rank sbasea Declared Subject
to Taxation hr nf,n xt.aa

NATIONAL Rank haaea Declared SubIect
to Taxation ~ tho state.
N Tue NEw 1oaK cous1 or ApPEA1s
7ne CITY of Utiea cs. O. Gspe.cs CduyrhW ond
nIeTs-dn4n t9r dAsa u. Atehdsl 4. Hplua and
eany-cha1'esg p. Wisaa1a. I'D oafsss i. u
pc;lo, g. J:-Ihe appeals in these three cases
each Il, whether the aharea Of ihe rocfhoIders in
the banking assocatlons created unicr The acts Of
Mp.sn ~ posde or he ceaen Of National
uea; u me nttt ease The Institution whose stock
hodess Were fased was st hiahed on The 4th of jan
-: me n1e.ed q 5s whols s, p
debt Of the United statea. The plaintiffs md
othez sfaEeholders were ta1ed by Ia Common
E9nn ch o. hs ss5 ct uaea n September, 1851 az
ahsree IN lhe stock Of he banf rep,esspted IN he
second eaas The lnstltu1ion d tic Fist National
IT, h q h9e sps of Sss r. d R
national eecurnes> Ifs ehsseholde,s, ii Whou the
n1n1 pnn - o eps efs a.sessed apon he espeetl,e
APRIL % September In The present rear. Ii the
remaining case the institution Is he National
Albany Exenange Bank, and It wss established In
January, lst5, with d capital Of {510UO all OF
which Is invested IN fedetat aecnrisics The plsin
iii T. Shareholder, and with the ohef tharehold-
es. aas been taxed during the present year ln The
anls n thess tWo actions are the individuals who
Albany.
> Each Of the three notions came begorc the Su-
Grcre Court upon caees agreed upon, pursuant 10
tGe 52d section Of the Code Of Procedure, for the
pnipoeo 81 determining whether the parties who
such taxation. The p1aint1fis proceeded In behalf
9! taemse!ses and all other stockhaldeu Of their
respective banks.
= In The drat csse the decislon Of the Supreme
Court wss that the plaintiff Churchill MS uabte to
ahe tax his residence being IN the Ast ward Of fhc
and shat lie ohes piasntts were M not not ssS}s o. ae
COUNT Of thelr residence being without that ward.
Jndgnent ~sa given accordingly, and costs were
cases The tn1es weto adjadged 10 bc Illegal and
aea hst sta5 g. q ss e
the pariea against whom the judgments .sers Sen
de1ed.
There are some question, which a,s no. common
to all these bauks In the first case theI bank Was
established. md The ta1es which are challenged
state. which sss passed and beeame law On he
9fh day Of March, 1865. Only one Of the plaintiffs
resided In tho ,snrd Of the city Of Utica "a which
TINS fat been rtafed show thaf he was lesaly taxed
or the olher parties taxed one resided IN another
wa1d Of the city, ono IN The same county, another
one IN tde District Of Columbia. Psiqr to ths
Enabling act lans required thatthe taxation Of
personal property shall be IN The Town Or ward in
Inclined 10 the opinion that the provision Of the
rational banking law 50 oi,en referred 10 might hc
| considered "a change Of our own law, md might
be sustained on account Of IT. relation To Tho rs.
fonal banks which are Within the sphera Of federal
legislation. On further reflection have concluded
TINT II would be more correct 10 bold that the effect
ct 1he prosteo Is to permit the States SO to shspc
their aUs Of taxation, o. taz al tho ahaseho1aers at
nc placa nhGre the bank IL situated, - has been
done by the Enabling act Il fo!lcws that the ]udg
1nent Of the Supreme Court IN asor Of the paintii
acalnst William Churchill should BE- atirmed, and
that the Judgment ia favor Of the other defendants
~ ahyt case stoujd likewise be affirmed. In The
second case The hank Wat established pttnr to the
psssage Of the Enabling act Just mentioned, and
a!so Prior to The banking act Of Congress-
&C! which authorizes the taruhon Of ehafe,
holders Otherwise than In the place o1
Their residence declares That ali the
ehnses Of any Of the banking associations
organized under this act Or the act Of Congress-
4 nent1oned IN section one Of this act," shall he
ttsesked or taxed in the toNn or ward in which the
hank Is !otated. flaws 1et5, ch. N. sec. 10), and