The national Republican., 1867-12-14

action the defendant was IN error 81 eSeeu.
tion upon the equitable interest Of William o'Bren
fRc He tSuft held that Hobbs the beusneiary had 2o
right u action, such right being exclusively u hie
BY consent, Juror was Withdrawn. and tho plain.
" III 5"pf ShcIaSn ~ Ripley Y. Parker Judgment by
d;;isuiS mad. aR.l By.dlSSSb lSSsb0 william, p,.a.
and a. SflsfeprssGfsy, SSHsffe pasIGl u " :, '
SS ffant kcyser W Jones' SS,tlea by the
ESS efss .o sSSIs SSoS. sA'F Thompson
and III ISe II atihs tHs ssss, Sssdsd rom Sc desSdsn
use usury 90 70 he Jury and bal hS charge o tho
o?ss Gsssan iSsa s;sS s@. TS''sa md Miller Con-
plsn, rsS .Hs ksr$sa FsfTSSss sa
W. s.o II SGnS s.RH Marcus sssSrSHiS SEpm.n
II, S es5;ga IS Foley Graham Norris; Thompson.
IS, fsss 'sr x. S %s!ba.1H VT! FaSsD and
town Railroad Company. sSlAdcT' MerrIeE. Brad
.usIsd ss s1 ss ssGT 1ansns 6 s9
seS i1Is "a Snf Ha nns Il TSS
i6o gar Wheel, aud on the other BY tho plaintiffs
S, SD S Sss% SrsS at
ssS 'tpoet0S 'SSSose Co. vs. Foley. judgment
l4s7, CLARKE 4 Co. vs. ?. r. Foley a Co. Juds-
iEs kllbTswn Z Ls'ta vs: i. gepariSi. As!Lca
10 securing A. q %S for tho
Tho court then adjourned until this morning.
SUPREME Gounr OF uNrTEp sTArEs-FCiday
sdmi,isd to practice attorney and counsellor
On @pSiiSa Of Nj, Dick. gSS,ss, "; woodward,
81 %StIoS @ q NJ %So$ysf 'f , ! Lucas. s.s, Of
ny ana !; q MI SSuT d,snn
admitted to practice as attorneys aud councillors Of
= On motion Of Mr., Gushing. D. K; MeRac. q.q.. Of
No. $a Tho Mayor, aldermen and Common cOuu.
Sbstss e tho s' St I.s. q -
plaintiffs 10 error died a motion for allowance Of
10 10 ySsi II. Wicker, plaintiff In error. VI. Eli
H9pposk This cause % T,s snbmit.ed to the sonside5-
Gi o hs Trca sna
W, Fuller, for the defendant in error.
@ ssrs qs q u tSs
gt Court q the United States for the Northern Dis.
On motion q Mr. Hughes. Of counsel for the defend
ant In errS5 this writ Of error was doekctcd and dis
No. III Tho United States. appellants, VS.. ThOO.
The motion to. dismis, this appeal was argued by
MI WI. aSd Mr. Carlisle n support Of tho same
SdSSpfnsd m nS ohday %62Rns s
ia Tar % Ms "dsposits ~ saeines banks, u IN
,s TsS so$S}ss ss ss;yisps g,, sssi
Court cf the State q 6oSSSetieSt Tho questions in:
s5ss lss: of tho
The society for savings Is 2 species Of e95pOIation
ca ns s.sSrs ana 0sIs SrsaSad sTe's sp3 aSs
business at Hartford and Is empowered BY ts charter
ss% e % Snd sf Ss SSs
thereof In just proportions among the persons making
ne deposits with tho general powers OF such corpora
TEs Society ,or saving, on the hTS. q Jsly, 1883,
which ths sum e ~ ~ wa. then invSstsa sPS held
WheR BY of 81 9s s
from taxation Their return to the State CSmptroel
scSpaasd wh payntn % of tSe % State lax on ali Ss
the amount so invested in Government bonds. The
ss on S maey he
not deductng the sum Invested In Government bonds
sS rss. e S%ea9s 81 Ss s9s
quirng payment q the tar on the entire deposits. a.
Of Ts aS s t
%ea was sarmsd came hsnss SnSw here on sppss e
that the tax in question was not, a tax on property
but on the corporation. as such-on the franchise
rom he United States exempt rom tasaon
the Constitution, and expressly exempt by act o
Congress, whether owned by an Individual or cor
sis with reference to which the value Of the property
81 ecrPopsS fpPsbsS R 2hs @ pSpc Il ss
tion il does not At all avoid The question 10 say that
Is the franchise which Is taxed Certainly not unles
appears that the tax is levied upon the naked fran
ehise irrespective Of property or business as basi
franchise Is not confined IN L. exercise to corpora
tions. but may be enforced against individuhi,i
is easily seen that under such power. the immu
nifty from taxatio Of credo OF the United State
wifl II tho tax In question be sustained, be rcndere
or no practical value II each individual and corpo
ration throughout the State should be required +
state the amount Of tho cost Of the personal property
owned by him the lst Of January In each year, AMI
the one In question would result II ha. no respee
to the value q the property at the tmc OF tax, bu
rosts SUBSTANTIALLY as In this case, upon tho nmoun
paid for q for tho deposits q ~ pisintis iPsttI
to say that their amount represent as nearly th'
value Of the property held as would the cost In th
case supposed, .
has been determined by the supreme Court o. the Uni
ted SAtes (Bank Of Savings VS. Collector, Wool 6I
that moneys received by Savings bank .'whethc
invested or not, are deposits, and that when rc
to be such until repaid to tho depoStor," then It Il
certain that in this case tax the total amount
deposits Of the plaintiff In Is not and cannot b
held to bo tax on their Government securities. y
Chamberlain for plaintiff In error, r. D. Hubbard fol
| defendant In error.
The case Il Deantsog gs. TAs Cooperation. Den
was stated In the papers Of Yesterday upon ht
issue Of eri Jdctds by the Supreme Court OF the Dis
Mcssrs. Bradley and Davidge now moved before
this Court for supersededs in the case The motion
| Is under adylsement.
| ~