Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-03

County National bank Of Chicago, and by the
latter transferred in violation of an agreement
with the Wyandotte bank to the New York
State Loan & Trust company, of which plain
tiff in error is receiver. This court holds
First-1hat as between the complainant and
the Cook County bank there is project defense
against the note to the extent of 50, S6S, which
amount stood to the credit of the Wyandotte
bank on the books of the Cook County bank
at the time of the latter's failure. .
Second-That plaintiff in error can claim no
more or greater right than the Cook County
bank had, and that compliments are therefore
entitled to return of the note and collaterals
on the payment of the sum of 1882. The de-
cree of the lower court ia therefore affirmed,
with costs.
157-Hugh Shaw, ct al, plaintiffs in error, vs..
the Merchants National Bank of st. Lous, in
error, to the circuit court of the United
States for the eastern district of Pennsyl-
vaMia.
The controversy in this case relates to the
ownership of 143 bales of cotton, of which de-
fendent in error claims to be the owner, but of
which plaintiffs in error came into possession
by means of a bill of lading which, it
is alleged, was stolen by parties who
transferred it to plaintiff in error. This court
holds that the purchaser of q stolen bill of
lading who purchases with reason tc believe
that tie vender wasn't the owner of the bill,
in that it was held to secure payment OF an
outstanding draft, is not q bonafide purchaser,
and he isn't entitled to hold the merchandise
covered by the bill against its true owner. The
Judgment of the lower court is affirmed with
costs and interest.
No. 10. The People of the State of New York
ex rel. G. H. Williams, plaintiff in error, VS..
T or nj in
to the court of appeals of New York.
This case involves the question of the legal
ity of the States action in virtually discrimi-
mating against capital invested in national
bank stock, in valuation and assessment made
for State taxes. This court holds:
First-That the provision of the national
bank law that State taxation on shares CT banks
shall not be at greater rate than is assessed
on other moeyned capital in the hands of citl-
zens of State, has reference to the entire pro-
cess Of assessment and includes the valuation
of shares as well as rates of per centage charged
at such valuation.
Second-That the statute of State, there
fore, which establishes mode of assessment
by which the shares of national banks are
valued higher in proportion to their real value
than other moneyed capital, is in conflict with
the act of Congress. even though no greater
percentage is levied on that valuation than on
Inc V8luaClOu OI ObucI uOueyCu CdpAt0As
Third-That the statute of New York of 1866,
which permits the debtor to deduct the amount
Of his debts from the valuation of all his per-
sonal property, including moneyed capital, ex-
cept his bank shares, taxes those shares at a
greater rate than other moneyed capital, and
is therefore void as to shares on national banks.
Judgment of the New York court of appeals
is reversed.
No. 693. c. P. Williams, plaintiff in error, vs..
VIM. J. Weaver ct al, assessor in error to
the court of appeals of New York.
This was suit brought by Williams to hold
the assessors of Albany individually liable for
sums which he and others had been compelled
to pay as taxes on national bank stock by rea-
son of unlawful assessments made by defen-
dants in error in their official character the
board of assessors of the city of Albany. The
New York court of appeals held that in the alb
sence of fraud or intentional wrong the ssses-
sors were not personally liable in damages for
no error in the record which it can properly re-
view, and the judgment is therefore affirmed
with costs.
No. 563. William Cummings, treasurer, etc.,
appellant, VS.. the Merchants National Bank
of Toledo, Ohio. Appeal from the United
States circuit court for the northern district
of Ohio.
This was an action to Join the collection of
an alleged excess of State, county and city
taxes levied on the bank through an inequit-
able system of property valuation. This court
holds:
First-That the act of the Ohio legislature,
creating q board for the equalization of bank
shares is not in violation of the constitution of
that State; but
Second-That the rule or principle of I'M
equal valuation adopted by the local boards of
assessment is unconditional and works a mani
fest injustice to the owners of bank shares.
Third-That when this rule or principle IS
applied to a large class of individuals or corpo-
rations, equity may properly interfere to re-
strain this unconstitutional exercise of power.
Fourth-That the appropriate mode Of relief
in such cases is on payments of the amount
laid which is equal to that assessed on other
property, to enjon the collection of the illegal
excess. Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion
by Justice Miller, Chief Justice Waite dissent
ing.
No. 627. Frederick w. Peiton, treasurer, etc.,
VS.. The Commercial National Bank of Cleve-
land. Appeal from the United States circuit
court for the northern district of Ohio.
This case grows out of a state of facts SINH
lar to that set forth in the case of the Mer-
chants National bank above, No. 563. This
court holds that systematic and intentional
assessment of national bank shares at their
value, while all other moneyed capital is as
sessed far below Its true value is a violation of
the act of Congress-. prescribing the rule by
which shares shall be taxed, and that upon pay
ment of sum which bank shares ought to pay
under said rule, a court of equity will enjoin
the State authorities from collecting the re-
mainder Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion
by Justice Miller, Chief Justice Waite dis
senting.
No. 1O4. VIM. T. Wolsey ct al, appellant, We.
Richard B. Chapman. Appeal from the
United States circuit court for the district of
Iowa.
This case involves title to lands in the State
of Iowa known as the Des Moines river grant,
Chapman claims title under the grant for inn
provement of the Des Moines river made by
acts of Congress in 1876, 1861 and 1852 while
Wolsey claims under the half million acre
grant, known as the school grant made by the
acts of 1841 and 1S49. This court holds:
First-That no title passed to the State by
the approval and selection of the lands in dis
pute under the act of 1871. Being lawfully
reserved from sale at the time of selection they
were net included in the grant which that act
provided for.
Second-That Chapman has right to ques-
ton Wolsey's title. Neither took title from
the State at first and as the final grant from