The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-10-25
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
National Rank shares md state Taxafion--
The Distinction Between Tax Bank
Capital and Bank shares.
TOBIAS s. bradley d al rs The People Of Nsnoss-ln
error TO The Supreme Court OF Illinois. plaintiffs
in error were the OF the capital stock Of The
Second National Bank OF Peoria. The OF the
town OF Peoria assessed the share OF the bank their
par value The plaintiffs In error believing the ASSESS
ment unauthorized. applied by petition TO the Board Of
Supervisors Of thor county and that board after con
alteration held tho shares subject 10 axatioS
and granted the prayer Of the petitioners, that tho
assessment DO stricken from the ists
The State Auditor declined TO approve the action or
the Board and brought The into under act
authorizing tho proceeding to test The questions In
vowed The cause taken to the Supreme Court Of TIE
State where after considering tho objections Of the
Auditor shat The money invested In such shares In
clearly within the meaning or tho term Investment In
STOCKS a. defined 10 the second section OF the or
feoruary IL lso3 that tho rate OF taxation sought To
10 levied on tne shares was no greater Than would bs
levied on the capital stock or shares OF STATE banks ana
therefore not in contraveuon OF tho provisions or
section forty or the Of June 1854: aud that
the taxation sought TO DO imposed in violation
any law OF Congress exempting Uaucd States bonds
from taxation under state auhory" The order OF the
Board OF supervisors was reversed and annued. Ths
cause thence came hoye.
opinion
IN substance foilows-lhe came before thar
Court on appeal from decision of tho Board or
Supervisors OF the comfy OF Peoria by which ney had
refused to assess state and county tax the or
Bradley and Howell 10 tue First AMI second National
Banks Of Peoria. The appeal vas taken by tho
Auditor of Public Accounts, Of the State The
Supreme Court reversed this decsion OF the board
he'd the shareholders liable to the Tho ground Of
exemption relied on, both before the Supervisors and
the Supreme Court Of authority in the board.
within the iorty-hr ton OF the National Bank or
June 1864 and particularly within the second proyso
a
coed the rate imposed upon the shares in any OF the
banks organized under tho authcry OF tho States =
The OF the State dated February a. 1867 provides
Tor taxing the capital stock OF tie banks together with
the surplus profits or reserved funds Notax Is imposed
specifically on tho shares held by Tho stakeholder This
question came before 10 the o. ysn Alien vs. The
Assessors u wall, 573. SSH from New York where the
statute taxing the State BANKS sub anay like that
Illinois We then held the tax unauhlr zcd for tho
defect stated II ~as in that attempted be
on mo capital was equivalent 70 tax on the shares Az
respected the shareholders. But the position
swercd that admitting to BIO yet. inasmuch the
capital OF tile state banks consist OF the bonds OF tho
United States which exempt from State taxation, IL
was not easy 10 SEQ that the tax the capital
equivalent 10 tax on tho shares We distinction
between the two and the Judgment OF be-
low must be reversed and the proceedings romanded
with directions TO enter judgment Affirming tho dsc
sion OF the Board Of Supervisors.
Spanish Lnnd Grants la Observation-Disclosures
Possessien-The Government Officers Con-
trOiicd by IL.
Isaac Graham It. al ~. the Usi,ed .St1es Appeal
from the District Court TOR the Northern District of
is q contest bstwesn the government
and the appellants concerning tho confirmation Of ts
set up by tho claimants TO certain lands constituting
grant from the Mexican government many since.
while California was portion Of tina, country.
The land in dispute has passed through several hands
since belonging 10 the original grantees and no question
Ia made to tho appellants beng the holders or the
title any there be; but only whether that title in
bath. Ssrlo abA
a. 10 possession delivered under the title set up Do MOI
warrant confirmation.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of the Court
Tho grant to Mayors from whom tho appellants derive
their title, describes tho land granted that formerly
occupied by Francis Moss, and known by the name OF
Zayante, bordering tho village Of Brancforte and
mission Of santa Cruz. and a. being In extent "long
udinaliy league and lattudinay one. half league
moro or less" a. explained by the accompanying d,a
gram The question presented by the appeal whether
tho approx cd by the District toar embraces the
land thus described As We have had occasion hereto
to observe tsarin vs. tho United States Wallace
2s9l the Mexican law, vel rs the common law, made
formal delivery OF possession or fvcry OF seizn or
the property essential after the execution OF grant.
for the nvestturo OF tho tito This proceeding Vas
usually taken BIZ the magistrate OF the vcinage, with
propreiors, who werc summoned for the OCCASION Ar
preliminary 10 the actual d,livery OF possession, tho
land had TO be measured and s boundaries ostabiish
when tnorc was any upcertsinty Ia the description
tho premises Various equations for the guidance
these matters % tho magistrates were prescribed W
Law. That which concerns tho present inquiry 10 shk
they required the mag straf, preserve recOrdof
OF az otner steps Of thS prcceedips.
TO have the attested by the assisting witnesses
and 10 furnish authentic copy 70 the grantee.
by shis pfoceehiug-caiei In The language OF
country tho delivery Of juridica possessionthe
land granted separated from the public domain and
what previously grant Of quantity became grant
Of specific tract. The record Of procecdine Of this
necessarily coaro the action OF the oicevs
OF tbs United STATES In Ing land claimed under
confirmed Mexican grant In mo resent case ord'cai
possession the land had been vcred TO the sranes
and the record produced aud gwen In ovidcLcs-
rho nrst survey of tho land made by tho Surveyor
General Of United states for California; after the
confirmation. did conform to the measurements
shown hy this record The District Court for thai rcs
SON. set the aside, and directed new survey,
which shocid correspond with that measurement TO
application of tho appellants Tor change ~ the
location the District Court held tnai there were insupsi-
able objections presented by tho action o. the oncers
under the former government and that was the duty
or tho locate the land ordng 10 tne measure
ment made by the acaids aud sgucd bv him and the
assisting Witnesses Ia The record OF proceedings upon
the dclivary poseesion. We fully In this view
With ton a