Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-12-10
HOW JUDGES DISAGREE
AND CALL EACH OTHEl. LEARNED
BROTH ER8."
How the Lancaster County Court Gets BaC
ut the Delaware County Court.


in the legal circles of this state, beyond
the borders of our own county, by a
spirited controversy between Judge Liv-
ingston and Judge Clayton, of Delaware
county, the nature of which and the novel
manner in which it is carried on can best
be learned from tho following recital of
facts:
On April 5th, 1879, Judge Livingston
delivered an opinion in the case OF the
county of Lancaster vs.. the Lancaster
county national bank, in which he held
that where part of the capital of a national
bank is invested in building used for
banking purposes, and the bank pays into
the state treasury tho tax of one per cent,
prescribed by act of assembly, upon tho
par value Of all its shares, the building can
not be taxed for county purposes. although
the cashier occupies the part of the build
ing not used for banking as residence
Subsequently somewhat similar qucs-
ton arose in the common pleas Of Chester
county, Judge Clayton, of Delaware ccun-
ty, sitting for the adjudication of tho case
stated. 1t was the county Of Chester VS..
national bank Of Chester county, and on
the facts nearly like those i'll the case of
the Lancaster county bank, Judge Clayton
decided:
A dwelling house and lot, owned by a
national bank and occupied by its cashier
as a residence, although paid for out of
the profits of the bank, and where the
bank has paid to the state its six mills tax
on the par value of its shares under the
act of 1879, is liable to the ordinary tax of
real estate, for county purposes.
So, also, is its lot and bank building
used entirely for banking purposes.
Farmers aud Drovers' bank VS.. Greene
county, followed.
The relief of bank stock in the hand of
share holders from local taxation is ample
compensation for the banks trouble in
collectin. the six mill tax under the act OF
1879.
Lancaster county VS.. Lancaster County
national bank, 10 Lancaster Bur 1S5, dis
sented from.
In making his dissent from Judge J.iv-
ingston's opinion Judge Clayton rather
brusquely said
The supreme court Of the state have de-
cided that the banking house of national
bank, though built from the profits of the
institution and used only for and indis.
pcnsable to the purposes OF the institu
tion, is taxable for county purposes, not
withstandins the payment OF tho ten mill
tax provided for by act of March u, 1870:
Commissioners of Greene county VS.. Far
mers aud DrOvcrs' national bank of
Wayncsbu:g, Z Leg. Gaz. 147 s. c. 3
Leg. Ciro. 81. The case has not been
officially reported; from which we must
infer that the supreme court considered
the question too selfcvidcnt a proposition
of law to need advertisement to the people
or the profession. The case arose under
the act of March 81, 1870 QPurd. Dig. 143,
pl. 90, and as the act OF June z. 1879, is
but a supplement- or re-enactment OF the
former act, substituting six instead OF ten
mills as the amount Of tax to bo paid on
the shares of stock, the decision, of course,
applies to the latter act as fully as to the
former. True, Judge Livingston, in the
case of Lancaster county national bank,
decided the other way being, however, in
direct conflict will. the higher court, it is
of no authority.
The editor OF tho Lancaster Gar, in
publishing this delivcrance Of the Della
ware county judge took occasion to say,
editorially:
1t will be seen from careful comparison
of the above cases that there is no con-
fiict between them that where the bank
building is purchased with the profits or
earnings of the bank alone it is then liable
for the tax for county purposes, but where
it is purchased with and represents both
capital and profits it is exempt from such
taxation /; and that the opinion of Judge
Livingston. delivered April 9Th, 1879, is
not in conflict with those of the supreme
court.
Now comes Judge Livinsston's turn. 1t
has happened recently that in the abun-
dant litigation of the Lycoming Mutual
insurance company against persons whose
premium notes it held Judge Clayton, in
passing upon what description of property
is required to enter Judgement on these
notes, against the real estate insured, de-
cided that " the description of the proper
ty required by the provisO of the act to be
filed with the note, must be sufficiently
specific to designate the property with
reasonable certainty, SO as to distinguish
it from other property Of the insured in
the same neighbolhood. Where the de-
scrip:ion is defective the judgment will
be stricken Off" In the case before him
he struck off the judgment because the
description was IN insufficient compliance
with the law, but incidentally made this
allusion to the rights conferred upon the
company by the law uunder which it
operates:
The Sd prOvisO of the same section de.
clales, that before any execution shall
issue, - il shall bc the duty Of tho officers
of said company to cause to he made out
a statement of the amount Of premiums
received, and the manner in which the
money OF the company has been expended
and flo a copy thereof, attested by the
oath or affirmation of the treasurer, in the
Office of the prothonotary of such county
wherein members reside who are to be
affected 10y the issuing of the execution.
The last proviso is the only redeeming
feature in the above choice specimen Of
special legislative favoritism, but, if the
statement filed in this case is true speci-
men of the one usually furnished in such
cases, even this last prOviso is delnsive,
for it gives no information except by five
general Jumped accounts, the smallest
item being for $5l, ,711.S1.
If the motion were only to set aside the
execution, this statement would certainly
be held insufficient. The motion, how