The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-06
TAXATION OF BANK STOCK.
A Decision That Involves Some Intricate
Points of Law.

In the suit of the First National Bank, of Indi
anapolis against John l.. Mothershead, to en-
join the collection of certain taxes, the Superior
Court, in general term, has reversed the special
term finding. The opinion was by Judge Taylor,
and concurred in by Judge Walker It involves
some nice legal points, and has general interest
aside from this. Judge Taylor's ruling was as
follows:
This action was brought to enion the treasurer of
Marion county, Indiana, from collecting certain taxes
assessed upon certain shares of the capital stock of
the plaintiff owned by the several parties mentioned
in the complaint.
1t is charged in the complaint that the respective
owners OF the shares described entitled to have
the items of Indebtedness therein set forth deducted
from the assessments made against their respective
shares Il is further alleged that the balance of the
taxes assessed, after making the deduction claimed
paid to the treasur of said Marion county before
the action was commenced
demurrer to the complaint, for want of facts suf
cient to constitute of action sustained by
the special term and the proper exception taken at
the time The plaintiff, eleeting to stand upon her
complaint, Judgment was rendered against her for
costs From this Judgment the plaintiff has appealed
to the general term.
The sole question presented the appeal is whether
those shares of bank stock TO be considered credits
moneyed capitsl from which the bona fde indebted
ness of the several parties owning the may, for
the purpose of taxation be deducted.
If they should be considered the decision Of the
special term ought to be reversed, but if they ought
not De so considered or the special
should be affirmed and whether they not to be
considered depends upon the construction of the pro
visions of the act of 1881 of this State. entitled An
act concerning taxation (Acts 1881, p. GID relat
ing to that particular question.
In the case of Matter Campbell III Ind. p.
512) the Supreme Court OF the State held that under
the provisions of the act of Dec. 81 1872 Il r. S.
1876 p. 72) the resident taxpayer has the right in
listing his personal property for taxation, to deduct
from his money at interest either within without
the State and all other demands together constitrt
ing the total amount Of all credits owned and held by
him, his bona ide Indebtedness, and to list give in
the surplus or remainder only for the purpose Of tax
alton"
In the case of The People vs. Weaver 600 U. s., p.
239), the Supreme Court of the United States held
that the provisions in 5219 of the Revised Stat
utes of the United States that State taxation
on the shares of any national banking
than is assessed other moneyed capital ia the hands
of individual citizens Of the State has reference to the
entire process of assessment, and includes the valua-
ton of the shares as well the rate of percentage
charged thereon.
And in the case of the Evansville Bank vs. Britton.
1O5 U. s., p 1872 that court further held that the
taxation of national bank stock without permitting
the of them to deduct from their assessed value
the amount of his bona hde indebtedness, a. he may
in the of other Investments of money and capital
is discrimination forbidden by the of Congress:
which is affirmation of the principle declared IN the
case of the People VS., Weaver, supra
In the course of the opinion in Evansville Bank
Britton, supra, which was appealed from the
Indiana the court say: Undoubtedly there may be
much personal property exempt from taxation without
giving bank SnareS rlght TO similar exemption be-
personal property is not necessarily moneyed
capital But the rights, credits, demands and money
at interest mentioned in the Indiana statute Il r.
s. 1876, p. 72) from which bona fde debts
may be deducted, all mean moneyed
capital invested in that way" The case Of Matter vs..
Campbell SUPRA was decided by the Supreme Court
of this State the act of 1872 and the decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States in Evansville
Bank vs. Britton supra, was made on the same act.
This opinion would be extended to great length and
much time consumed if particular examination and
of each of the provisions of the acts of 1872
and 1881 bearing upon this question attempted.
shall, therefore give the result only of such
inatination and comparison, which is that they are
substantially the and from this conclusion it is
clear:
First-That the deduction asked for in the COM
plant in this authorized by the provisions of
the act of 1881 of this State concerning taxation.
Second-That if the deductions asked for in the
complaint in this is not authorized by the said act
of 1881 in so far it is prohibited the act is void
1t is my opinion that the Judgment of the special
term should be reversed Walker j., concurs.
The judgment of the special term reversed and the
cause remanded, with directions to overrue the de-
murrer to the complaint.