The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-11
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


WASHINGTON, d. O., Jan. 10, 1878.
No. o. Commercial Bank OF Rochester vs.. City
OF Rochester-Err0r to the New York Court OF
Appeals-In this case the city levied tax on
100000 OF the capital stock OF the bank invested
in government securities and deposited with the
Superintendent OF the Banking Department as Sc
curity for the circulating notes Of the bank. The
bank claimed that the securities were not liable;
but the city insisted, and proposed to issue war
rants Tor the collection Of the tax. Thereupon the
bank suggested that II the city would, by its Coun-
Gil, pass an ordinance receiving the amount or the
done the bank PAID the tax and brought this suit to
recover the amount. The State Court, cenceding
that the tax was illegal, held that the bank had
proceeding to correct an error In the assess
ment, and not by suit to recover the amount. The
bring the case here insisting that whatever remedy
might have been taken to correct the assessment,
iecteG may be- recovered BACK me defendant in
error contends that the judgment being merely on
the question OF the proper remedy, there is no
plaintiff in error; G. W. Miller for defendant.
No. 90. Williams. Collector, &C., vs.. Reynolds
Trustee-Error to the Circuit Court for the District
Of Indiana.-This was a suit by Reynolds as trus-
tee OF the Lafayette ana Indianapolis Railroad
Company, to recover back revenue tax, paid
under protest, levied ON the surplus earnings of
the road, which were invested In government
bonds, claiming that they were not annual earn
1ngS Tor the year, nut the surplus earnings OF the
road for several years, all OF which had paid the
government tax. The Court below held that the
tax was illegal, and the Judgment was for the
trustee. The collector brings the case here, claim
ing that the Court below was without Jurisdiction
OF the case, both parties TO 1t were citizens OF
the same State. This is the only question now pre-
sented by the writ OF error. G. II. Hill for the
government; Mcdonald and Roche for the de-
PENDANT.
No. "a. Dickerson, Executor, VS.. Planters Bank
OF Tennessee-Err0r to the Circuit Court for the
District OF Tennessee. was an action brought
by the executor to recover the amount Of check
drawn by the Planters Bank. located at Nashville,
on the Bank Of Virginia, at Richmond, in favor Of
the testator, who died in Virginia the day subse.
quent to the date OF the check. The check was
dated November A. 1861 but in consequence OF
the war 1t was over three years before the exc
cutor could obtain his fathers WILL qualify under
1t as executor and such officer present the
check for payment. The bank was then in
solvent and the note was not paid.
once (atter the wary deposited In the
Richmond Post ONCE, addressed to the Planters
Bank, but by mistake OF the notary, not addressed
to the bank at NashviIle-simply to the bank
Tennessee. The Court below held that the check
was not presented In time, and that even II 1t had
been the notice OF presentation and non payment
was not properly given In consequence OF the mis-
take OF the notary. 1t Is here cOntended that the
check was presented in time, because as soon Us 1t
was possible 1t could be done; and second, that,
under the circumstances, it was fair for the jury to
Cooper and Reverdy Johnson for plaintiff; G. Rob-
inSOn for de fendaut