New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-09
IMPORTANT TO TAXP4TEHS.

DECISION or THE UNITED sTATDS SUPREME
COURT " THE PALMER M'MNHoN CASE.
The decision Just made by the supreme conri II the
United states in the Of Francis y. Palmer pam
I'M in error. against Martin r. McNahon receiver OF
fake. 81 The cry Of NcwYork. defendant in error.
arrnins with costs the Judgment Of the said court Is
Of great Importance to the city Of Sew York; and OF
Interest - all stockholders Of National banks Inc
nr,ceedinr In thch the final decision has now been
made va, brought by Mcmahon. a. receiver "t tN'~
.r,in., Mr. Palmer ns a shareholder ia the National
broadway Bank IN this city. Under TIE pioNi'l'i''
Of Chapter 80 Of Tie Law, u Sc" York Of I-lj'
Article =. section, y and Is tlnce embodied n the
Consolidation At 81 H.. Section 80. petition Wa
rrcnicd 10 the Court Of Common Plea h' th' receiver
Of t,xc. I'm july. H. in which * Wa -A""" among
other thing. that In the year rc'edins Mt Ii'.
wa, "A sioohholdcr IN the liroadWaf lanA' t"t Ills
share. o. stock we're Guis Assessed fr l--l Ia I'll" sum
II - 35 which valuation va, aiter"ard tcd'''' Oh
the application II Mr. Palmer. to the sum Of Sioo'
that upon the lat named valuation tN
,r,. iupo.cd Il Sig0i o3, which was CON
nrmed In october. ISL, aud that Nf. RAINIER "'i
neglected to pay. account 81 th- Tux u' sum %
S3,G-t % Under thr provision "i inc N'' """N' w.
fcrrcd to the Cour; ~ Common Pleas granted Az ''"''
e. show cause why he should not hc pun he'd for mis-
consuc, for neglec,.na and refusing to pay the tax
The defendant nppclfed pursuant g. order, and Inter
,o..d au affidavit iu which D." sci forth number ca
alleged defence, e. tine proceeding -"n' ot ''m
,,,.lv technical relating 10 the preparation OF the
,....sneff roll other adccins the mrt OF the v"'
on and .tu other, involving the consttutIonalty oi
statutes
Arer a hearin. 81 the case. order was made In
Noy.ul.r -. hy Justice Van Irunt. which di
r.fed that Mr. Palmer hc and hereby l~ ordered Z"
stand committed to the lal 81 the city and county OF
New York. there to remain charged upon the SAID mis-
conduct until hc shall have paid the amount 81 the
said personal tax imposed upon HIM. TO w.t.
the. sum a. .Sc-i GJ. with lawful Interest thereon
,o w.t. tle sum Of $50 80. together
with the cost Of these pto'"'dln-'. 20
VIII the further sum OF $40. in the whole
amounting to The eum Of <J""' o.. u,'',
The ,nur shall ..r nt sooner e. di-ehHr-" Him ,
and II f. mrihc ordered that warrant iu" for that
purpose From this orltr au appeal wa. ia''" !"
The General Term OF ia" common l'A', NN.' l.r
order Appealed from Was In all ihnc ahiN'" WIN
cost. l., Judge DAILY, Beach aud Van iiNf Ni
appeal To- the Court If Appeals was then ii"rn. re-
-nliiug IA a further aihtman,c By the court ni Last c
~t.I un.,il-ncd. Nr. Palmer determined upon a
further hrariu.. IN tic Supreme Court of the ni'd
stale. This hearing W., recorded DO january iir
ana resulted a. above stated iu % judgment "i
anlruaucr with costs The effect a. tho Nc, .lon !,
that unless the tax with Interest," ana costs pih WI
Palmer f. liable 10 o.. committed to thr county jail
The opinion OF the >uprru" Court J. a"Mi'd WIN
Interest The dec, ion Viii Doubt have whole
,itS'i officer, In the enforcement of annual iNes un
bank shares. \ number of cases ar" -nd I" be-
pending involving similar question, To tho,r raised IA
The Palmer case. and unic-, settlement l' promptly
made they will Dee prosecuted b. Judgment hy the city.
In the state Court the proceeding wa '"nuu'tcd ~
T.. II. laconhc then Counsel f. the 'ooiatl9i' ana
ia the United states supreme Cont Wa~ brought 10 a
ociu issue by Cooperation Counsel Clark ana Da-