New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-08
Third District COurt-JudRe Emerson and
the State License Cp0n Banks.

State VS. Southern Bank and oth,r banks
On the motion for new trial. The following
positions were taken by :he GcTeEda,.ts
counsel:
l. That free banking law licensed and
authorized the banks organized under il 20
commence and continue her operations.
and precluded the imposition oi any other
license.
= The revenue act OF lSG" had already
taxed the capital OF those banks the fall
per ccnta.e fixed. and the subsequent. re
quircment of the license was illegal. mas
much AS the latter was AZ lno.Ie1: ana 40
ditioral tax upon the capital.
2. The free booking act pIeScr.rss AZ :le
terms. conditions ana liabilities 20 winch
those acting under :. are subjected, ..h.. AEy
others are inadni>s!hls a;.d Illegal.
/ l. This position i covered ev IL" '!'cl>:OH
in State W. King. n Al. 81. ..E.. - al
tenabie.
= a license TAX is n"t :. :.:N upon sa:.i:a'.
property or income. and = constitutional.
IIcrcs vs.. Powell. An. i>t: Hur.lv No.
vs. Dubois. !" An. il: E!Iu.> W. E.st..p.
Is An. 80; Stat" ". NaihI:l..:. % An. ~;
city of New Orleans vs.. ;.u>>", :: An. =.
To this may be added II" legislative in."..
prc:atiou of the right toru.icC. licenses tr"r
persons and CoTpolat:oH> alon wE"sc cap
tai or income u TAX IaG already he2n
assessed. t" be found III al The c:v"U.l" ...-s
PASSED since the organization =: .Lc STATE
government.
B. The act in question IS merely u series
of rules under which I;ee Gan..- NAV organ
izc and pursue their business, t'i. i toes
not restrain the iaw1naking power from
prescribing such additional rt.lc> and safe
guards as the public !nteres: may require.
Abbotts Digest Law ot Corporations. page
i45 and the cases there c.eG.
Even if section :hirtv-tve ccu!d be
deemed an exemption from any other tax
than that expressed ii - not a contract IN
the true and legal sense CT he word. be-
cause the privilege claimed to eXis. was Lot
granted in consequence OF .Cy equivalent:
or consideration paid or 70 he paid by the
banks and is therefore liable 20 repeal by
any subsequent legislation. Apbo..'s Digest
OF Corporations. til. iij. ;s6 and Al;
Cooley on CONSTITUTIONS. Limitations. $50.
PSI: Hospital vs. Philadelphia. county. -;
Pennsylvania State Reports, -t9.
Whatever of exemption may have existed
in the free banking law was repealed ty
the act Of 1869, imposing the license n cues
ton.
The rule for rev :::.:! mus: tc '..s
charged.
sixth District Ccnrt.
In the ease of Dr.. NJ. a. SoUthw",:i -.
the city. TO recover the sliIL OF ss5.l. Tor
the recording Of inventories OF lclnors pro
pcrtv tho jury rendered verde. IL favor Of
the defendant.
1t was proven on the :r;s! tiia. the plain
tiff had hired anG paid clerks 20 perform
the work alleged. and ais" that The city
had at one tine offered 5000 il settlement
of the claim. new ,r,al VII be asked 1or
IN this case.
Ochiglevitcl, W.. the Citv.-S;uit 70 recover
damages accluing 20 plaintiff through the
tearing down OF the Old Pontchar.ain rail
road depot. Plaintiff kept 4 store II the
building.
1t was proven that a petition had been
sent to the Mayor by the Inhabitants living
near the depot, asking its removal asst wa,
a nuisance.
Judge Cooley held that the Legislature
gave the city power to abate nuisances, and
if the city should be liable for abating nui
sances. it would be manitestly investing the
city with powers of self destruction.
The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled
to fourteen days notice from the city as
from an owner. The Judge decided that as
the city was neither owner nor leseee, it
was not bound to give notice, but the rail-
road company were bound to furnish such