Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-08
IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT
DECISION.

The Power OF Municipal Corporations
to Tax the stock Owned i'm Ranking
and other Companies located within
the Municipal Corporation where
said Stock is owned by Persons Re.
siding out of the Limits of the Mu-
nicipaI Corporation.
Lucinda Bedford VS. the Mayor and City Coun-
ell of Nashville.
The plaintiff is the owner CT stock in the
Nashville Gas Company, corporation
organized for the purpose Of sup
plying the city of Nashville with
gas, having its Office and place of
business within the corporate limits of said
city. A tax was assessed by the city author
tiles for municipal purposes, upon the valne
of the plaintiffs said stock, and she resists
its payment upon the ground, that as she
is a nonresident of the city of Nashville,
her stock is not liable to this tax; that
her stock is only liable for the taxes
assessed in the county and district
where she resides.
We have held in the cases of
Mclaughlin and others vs. Chadwel,
Tax Collector, at the present term,
that, previous to the act of March l, 1869,
under the general law making personal
property taxable in the county where the
owner resided, and in the absence of any
special legislation upon the subject, that
stocks were taxable where the owner re-
sided. We held, however, in those cases,
in regard to stocks in the national banks
that the act of March l, 1869, changed the
law upon the subject, and made the stock
taxable in the city, town or ward, where
the bank was located, and that this act be-
ing within the express permission of the act
of Congress upon the subject, and not in
violation OF any provision in the Con-
stitution, was valid. The question
now is as to the effect of this
act upon stocks in corporations other
than national banks or banking associations.
The language of the 9th section of said
act, or so much thereof as is necessary to
quote, is, "That no tax shall hereafter be
assessed upon the capital of any bank or
banking association, or any other joint
stock company, organized under the au-
thority of this State or of the United States,
but the stockholders in such banks and
banking associations, or other corporations,
shall be assessed and taxed on the value of
their shares of stock therein. Said shares
shall be included in the valuation Of the
personal property of such stakeholder in
the assessment of State, county or munich
pal taxes, at the place, town, ward or dis
trict where such bank or banking assOcia-
ton, or other corporation, is located, and
not elsewhere, whether said stakeholder
reside in said place, town, ward or district,
or not"
1t is argued, with much ingenuity,
that this act was only inten-
ded to apply to banks, banking
associations or other corporations, dealing
in money or doing in some form banking
business-frst for the reason that the act
was passed in consequence Of the decision
in the case of Thomas vs.. the Mayor 5
Cold, which made further legislation in re-
lation to the tax upon National bank stocks
necessary, and second, because other Sec
tons of the act in relation to carrying out
the provisions of the first, relate only to
bank or banking associations, and from
these considerations it is argued that this act
was only intended to apply to banks or
corporations doing banking business. If
the meaning of the statute from its language
were ambiguous or doubtful, then
the considerations urged would have
great weight in enabling the court
to determine the meaning, but
here the language is plain and unambigu-
| GUS, and comprehensive; the language is,
"any bank, banking association, or other
joint stock company, organized under the
authority of this State, or Of the United
States" and this, or equivalent language,
is three times in the same seCtiOn-its
meaning seems to be obvious and plain
and includes all stock in all corporations
! organized under State or Federal authority,
and we cannot avoid this plain language,
upon the ground urged.
Then, had the Legislature the power to
make this change? We hold the law valid
as to the national bank stocks, the only diff
ference between their stock and the plain
| tiff7s stock in the Gas Company, is that as to
| the bank stock, the act of Congress eX-
pressly leaves to the State Legislatures the
power to fix the place where the stocks
| of its own citizens in the banks may
! be taxed. Still, if the act, taxing the stock
| in the city where the bank is located, when
! the owner lived elsewhere, were in violation
| of any provision of the State Constitution,
we think the law would be void, or rather
| it would have to conform to the State Con-
stitution; but as we have held, there is no
constitutional prohibition. OF course we do
not say that the Legislature would have the
power to tax property, real or personal, in
a county or city different from the place
where the property is located. But it will
| be borne in mind that these stocks have in
reality no locality. They are not located
where the bank is situated; nor have they
in reality locality where the owner resides.
It was held in the absence of special legisla-
ton on the subject, that they came under
the head of personal property; and as they
had no locality on account Of the locality OF
the bank, that they must follow the resid-
ence Of the owner; but as they had no ac-
tual locality at either place, the rule might
| be changed by legislation upon the subject.
! 1t would seem to result from this, that the
plaintiff is made liable for corporation tax
| for the support of the government of the
| city of Nashville upon property not situated
! in the city, and for which under previous
well settled laws she was not liable. The
change may be more apparent than real
previous to the passage of this act the capital
! of this corporation was subject to taxation
| in its aggregate and corporate capacity. OF
course, Of tax thus assessed and paid the
plaintiff would have indirectly had to bear
her proportion. Now by this law, the CAPT
! tai Of the corporation is exempted and in its
place, the stock is divided among the stock
holders; it would seem to be the same thing
| in different shape. But, be this as it may,
the Legislature having in plain language
expressed their intention upon the subject,
we could not declare the law void, unless
it is plain violation of some prohibition of
the Constitution, and this does not appear
/ to be 30.
Affirm the judgment.
MCFARLAND, Judge.