The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-14
UNITED states sUPREME COURT.
Decisions.

WASHINGTON April Is, 1874.
The Chief Justice delivered his first opinion on
the bench OF the Supreme Court to-day, in q case
from Illinois, touching the right Of the State tax
nonresident national bank shareholders at the
residence of the bank. The members OF the bar
who heard 1t, and his brethren ON the Bench,
speak OF it in eulogisttc terms. Hon. Reverdy
Johnson is complimentary in his remarks, both as
to the merits OF the opinion and the manner of
delivery. The Chief Justice delivered his first
formal opinion considerably earlier than the late
Chief Justice did.
The Supreme Court to-day decided the case OF
Tappan, Collector OF TaXas of Chicago, VS.. The
Merchants National Bank of Chicago, from
the Circuit Court Of Illinois, presenting the ques.
ton whether the Legislature OF Illinois could in
1867, provide for the taxation OF the owners Of
shares OF the capital stock OF q national bank in
that State, ut the place within the state where
the bank was located, without regard to their
places OF residence. The court below de-
cided that the tax. could not be thus
Collector That decree is mere aI reyersed
the Court holding that shares OF STOCK in national
banks are personal property under the National
Banking act They are species OF personal prop
erty, say the Court which Is IN sense intangi-
BILE and lncorpora but the law which creates them
may separate them from the person OF the owner
for the purposes OF taxation and give them q
sius OF their own. This has been done; 1t Is held
by the banking act. The time the decree below
was made the Supreme Court OF Illinois has held
the State law Of 1861, under which the tax
IS held to Be- binding on this Court It's
ness is also conceded. Chief Justice Waite deliv-
In the cases Of the Atlantic, Tennessee ana Ohio
Railroad Company and others vs. the Carolina
National Bank OF Columbia and others. from the
day The question was whether bonds issued by
the company In May, 1862 payable at different
per 1875 o We're car
rency or lawful money. Some OF the
bonds falling into the hands Of the Bank
the company were willing to pay In Confederate
money. but the bank demanded the money OF the
United States, and this action was instituted to
compel payment under deed OF trust executed to
secure tnem The Court below sustained the de-
mand OF the bank and the question was brought
That the intention Of the company that the ' prn
cpal OF its bonds should De paid III lawful money
instead of Confederate notes may be justly In
ferred from the nature the contracts particularly
they were issued, is said, it could not nave been
would continue from seven to thirteen years. It
IS well known that at that time 1t was the general
OF short duration. The Confederate notes were
only payable by their terms after ratlf-
cation Of peace oe tso me Coneasr
bonds OF the railroad were INTENDED ior sale
in the market OF the world generally, and not
merely ia the confederate states. They were pay
able to bearer, and, therefore, transferable by de-
livery They state on their face that they may be
converted into the stock OF the company at par by
the holder. The declaration OF the officers OF the
company up to July, 1863, show tnat the company
t rssd Sh s bonds ans as hs svnct
nuctuation confederate currency. Repeated
declarations OF the officers were made 10
that import There Is sufficient in these clrcum-
stances, 1t is held, to repel the presumption
created by the ordinance OF the State OF 1865 pro-
vdng for the discharge Of all existing contracts
by scale OF the depreciation or Confederate
money and declaring that all contracts, except
Official and penal bonds payable to the State
should be deemed to nave been made with the in.
tention that they should be discharged In that cur
rency, and thus the case will be governed by the
ordinary rule.
Mr. justice Field delivered the opinion.