Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-02-10

in their order: Cadmontoni VS. city Lang
ford vs AldIich; LoeWenstine VS. Wolf;
Lewis VS. Ober; Mcdonald VS. Etchevarn5;
Cross VS. Cockrell; Gross VS. BTinkley;
Oockren VS. Gross; Lincoln vs. Hsrbert;
Crook VS. Ferguson; Lumpkin vs. Wilson.
First CireuIG COurt-HeIskeII. Judge.
This is motion day.
Second CIrcu1t COurt-RaISey, Judge.
The case of holland VS. Beaumont wss
concluded yesterday, and to-day the cases
published on and set for Thursday last
will be called.
Supreme C~Ourt-StttIng at Nashville.
The Nashville Banner of Thursday pub
fishes the following highly important de-
cision, holding that national bank stock
Is taxable where the bank is located:
In the supreme court yesterday, Justice
mcfarland delivered he opinion Of the
court in the stock tax cases. The cases
decided are nine in number, eight of them
being cases of certtOrGTf, to bring up the
distress warrants of the revenue collector
Of the city of Nashville, and the assess
other was an agreed case with Robert
Caldwell, collector of State and county
taxes,
The latter case involved simply the
question of the liability of stocks of ma
tons banks TO be assessed for taxation
under existing laws at the time of the as
sessment.
The eight city cases involved numerous
questions, and we're intended to embrace
the important questions that have been
raised against the taxation of stocks.
One of the defendants was q residen. of
the city of Nashville and owner of nation
al bank stock. On his behalf, as we'll as
of the others,i 1t was argued that the stocks
of national banks was not liable to taxa.
ton in the year 1870, under then existing
laws, because b national banking law
forbids the imposition of taxes on such
stocks at 9 greater rate than is levied on
other moneyed capital il the hands of in
diyidual citizens by or under State an.
thority. And the set OF March l, 1859,
which provides for the assessment, ex-
empts (by its nineteenth s~ection) the
bonds Of the state and of counties and cor
| porstions. This exemption, IL was argued,
so disturbs b equality of taxation on
moneyed capital as to render the tax on
national bank stocks void. But the court
held that while the naticnRllaw prohibits
the taxation Of these stocks at a greater
rate than is levied on such other moneyed
capital in the hands OF individual citizsns
as is taxed under the State laws, it does
/ not amount to an inhibition to tax the
1 HHLlUAAA bhuh EAOSA6g uAADoo Gil OdUCI
moneyed investments are taxed. The ex-
smption of some kinds of property from
taxation is usual under all well-regulsted
| governments, and such exemptions have
not been held to disturb the uniformity
ofthe rate Of taxation where the funda-
mental law requires it to be equal. a
Wallace, 1851 1t was insisted for plain
tifs that the exemption Of the nineteenth
section Is repealed by the first section OF
the act OF February Is, 1870; bat the above
ruling made il unnecessary for the court
to decide this point.
Another of the defendants Is q non-res-
dent of the city of Nashville, and still
another Is q nonresident of the county of
Davidson, but both residents of the State.
And for these il was argued that they
could not be assessed for taxation in re-
spect to their national bank stocks in the
city OF Nashville. But the court held
that the provisions of h national law
leave no question on this point. The act
Of June 8, 1864, provided that the shares
OF national stocks should not be exempt
from taxation by and under State author
ity, at the plscs where the bank is locs-
ted and mo- elsewhere; and the amend
msnt of February 4, 1893, provided that
the words "plsce where the bank is loca-
ted" shall be taken and held to mean In
the State where tbs bank Is located; and
adds q provision that the State legisls-
lures shall have power to determine the
place and manner of assessment of such
stocks, unless the owner be a non-resi-
dent of the State, in which case they
shall be assessed n the place where the
bank is located, and not elsewhere. Act
ing upon this authority, the legislature
has, by the ninth section of the act of
March l, 1869, determined the place and
manner of the taxation, making them
ali alike tsxRble at the place where the
bank Is located, and not elsewhere.
A further question was raised In favor
of all the defendants taxed ss owners of
national bank stock, that while under the
national law they may be subject to q
State tax, or taxation for State purposes,
said national law does not intend to sub
ject to taxation for county and corpora
ton imposes. But the court held, that
properly speaking, the authority to tax
these stocks does not arise under the na-
tional law; but rather that law ~withdraws
all prohibition to the taxation except the
restrictions specifically reserved IL said
law; and with these reservations leaves
the stocks subject to taxation by and IN
der State authority as other personal
property. All county and municipal tax.
alton is imposed under State authority;
and the language of the act of congress
Itself indicates the intention to rave these
stocks subject to all such taxation as SIM
liar property is subjected to by and under
s ste authority.
In one Of the cases, the question was
raised as to the liability of q nonresident
Of The city to bslssssssed jim and by the
city for stocks in 8 corporation other han
a bank, located within the city limits.
The court sdfe-ei to the opinion intimst-
ed by Judge Smith, st q former term of
the court, that while stocks must general
II be considered as locally situate at the
place OF the owner; yet the legislature
has power to make them subject to taxa
ton at the plsce of the corporation, as
congress has done in respect to the stocks
of national banks And further, that the
sct Of March l, 1859, has made the stocks
Of ali kinds of corporations subject to as
ssssment for taxation at the place where
the corporations to which they pertain
are located, and not at the residence of
the owner.
The opinion Is a very able one, ex-
pressed In the peculiarly clear stvle
which charscterjzes the opinions of Judge
Mcfarland, but 1t would fill several col
umns of our paper; so for the present we
must be content to give our resderE the
above imperfect abstract of the main
points decided, without giving the srgu-
mentS and authorities Of the learned
judge.
The owners of national banks speak of
carrying the case by writ Of error to the
United States supreme court; but hat
court has already decided all the points
against them in several leading cases.
EnNA AaENLAhaO l