New-York daily tribune., 1865-12-18
IN she Court Of Appeals-SEPrEiDER TERN.

The City Of Utica agt. G.. Clarence Churchill ct a.
The point in controversy in this action WA
substantially whether not, certain taxes inposeN
BY tie City of Utica upon the ol me
said Bank were legally imposed. and whether paymees
Of the same could be legally enforced
The Court held unanimously Porter. j., not sitting
in the case that the interest OF the stockholders in the
National Banks organized under the act OF Congress
Of June g. s64. legally taxable for state and conHs
ty and municipal purposes pursuant TO the laws Oh -
State. ,.,.
That the objection that these institutions ~
iustrumentaities of the General Government ior -
constitutional powers and are exempy
from State taxation upon the principle sy which tne
late Bank OF the United States was adjudged - ~
exempt does not apply WHERE as IN tt these csse -
is against the individual stockholders.
That this last position was ,5s cs.
OF Osborn st. The United States Bank " WhestfA
73s)
though the capital of the banks be invested in the -
curties of the public debt OF the United States
That taxes are imposed upon the owners OF property
in respect of account Of such ownership Henc4
where certain kind Of property is declared by the
Constitution by law 10 be exempt from taxation, the
exemption is conferred upon such owners but tne
stockholders are not IN legal sense the owners Oh tne
securities held by hs bank Their interest Is OF col
lateral nature and Is not the interest OF an owner.
The Harlem Gasight Company. respondent, agt n
Mayor, etc. Of Sew-Yors, appellant
This action was brought against the Corpora
=
lighting the city north OF the center Of Sxtyninth 81
The plaintiffs had provided the gas with which the
streets and public buildings in this part OF the city haA
been lighted for many years without any express con-
tract as to the price prior to July 1889. After thse
their bills we're rendered from month to month. anA
paid at rales desgnapd in q written agreement. :,
In August, 1864. the plaintiffs gave the muncips1
authorizes notice In writing, that IN consequence on
the increased cost Of manufacturing gas, on and ates
the ensuing month it would charge the city at the rate
of $50 per annum for lighting each Of the street lamps
north of the center of Seventy y-eighth 81.
During the month Of September 1864. no formal a.
tion az taken by the Common Council upon the SUD-
ec and the lamps continued TO be lighted Dy the dreoe
tion of the Superintendent of Lamps and Gas
The company rendered its bill against the CITY TO-
the amount furnished during September leo4' ana the
City Controller refused to pay it on due presentauoA
and demand &c.
The Court held that when lawful contract has been
ade with municipal corporation. and 1t has been fal-
filled by the creditor he is entitled by legal upncauoA
TO reasonable compensation IN the absence OF any
specific agreement TO price or rate OF payment.
That contract for gas 10 light the public building
and streets Of NewYork City s within the authoh'y
of the Municipal Corporation.
when the agreement ID for the use by the city OF g.
belonging to manufacturer who Is in the enjoyment o.
practical legislative monopoly. the case NOT wthiA
the proyso OF the city charter. which requires CON
tracts for supplies involving expenditure beyond s2o0
10 be made IN writing with the lowest bidder, on an
| advertisement for sealed proposals. tSesSon LAW
1851, $50, sec. 31.) ...,,.
That contract prescribing the rate OF COMPENSATION
for the use of gas during particular year is not 10
nature of an agreement running from year TO year.
cannot be held 10 Tx the measure Of compensation i''
subsequent use. JOEL IIFfASf, s'a'e H'p''