The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1890-04-02
An ImpOrtant.Decision.

decision of interest to tax payers, and par
tcularly TO the owners of National Bank stock,
was rendered Friday afternoon in the circuit
court, by Laubie, J.
In December, 1888, N. D. Clark, Esq, of this
city, commenced suit in the common pleas,
thrc ugh his attorney, A. S. Cole, Esq, repre-
sentng that he was the owner of certain shares ,
of stock in the First National Bank of this city, |
and that he was indebted in a sum exceeding
the value of said stock; that the whole value of
the stock had been placed on the tax duplicate,
and taxes levied thereon against him, and he had
not been permitted TO deduct his Indebtedness
from said stock. The Ohio Statutes relative to
the subject, provide that in making returns for
taxation, the CREDITS of an individual shall be
included in the list less his sworn bona fde in
debtedness. The question at issue was whether
national bank stock was such credit within the
meaning of the statute. as would enttle the
holder to deduct his debts therefrom. Mr..
| Clark claimed that it was and previous to
cowme ICING suit applied to the county auditor
| for deduction of taxes his bank stock, on
account of such Indebtedness the same exceed
| ing the value of the stock assessed The official
refused to grant him any relief, on the ground
| that the Ohio law gave him authority to do
so-a proposition undoubtedly true. Had this
been all of the question, suit would probably
been instituted sooner than it was but the at
tention of the auditor further directed to the
United States statutes and decisions under which
the States derive their authority 10 enact laws
taxing bank stock. Section 52I9 provides that
said stock may be included in the valuation of
personal property of the shareholder for taxation,
but shall not be assessed at a greater rate than
other monied capital in the hands of individual
citizens. Mr.. Clark claimed that under this
section, it would be an unjust and illegal dis
elimination against the owners of bank stock,
not to permit such Indebtedness to be deducted
from said shares. 1t was maintained by Mr..
) Clark that if the Ohio law did not include bank
stock in the section providing for the deduction
of debts, then it was in conflict with the Federal
statute, which alone gave the States the right TO
tax bank shares. The Auditor could not see it
! in that light and Mr.. Clark accordingly filed a
petition against Marvin Collins, county treasurer
asking that he be enjoined from collecting said
tax. The case was tried before Judge Robinson
at the January term, 1889, and the petition di=-
missed. Thereupon, it was taken to the circuit
f court and after full hearing, decided wholly
D in favor of plaintiff reversing the lower court
e Defendant raised the question of the constitu-
tionality of the Ohio statute, preventing deduc-
tons. but the court held that it had been in force
for thirty-one years, and had been acted under
4 by the citizens of the State during that length
4 of time, and would not now be declared uncon-
y stitutional by that tribunal. 1t had become ar
g uniform practice, and ought not now to be dis
e turI1ct1.
| The court held that bank stock is to be re-
garded as any other credit and in the course o
O its decision, said that the rate of taxation
n mentioned in the laws, means not only the pei
o centum Of tax, but the assessed VALUATION o
1t of the property. And further, that taxing Off
e GERS were as much bound to conform to The
laws of congress as to the statutes of the states
# and when there was a conflict as in the presen
s case, the Federal statute was the supreme law
e and state officers as well as all others, must re
: gard it; and that the failure of the Auditor t(
. so regard it, and make the deduction asked for
{ while not a violation of the State statute, was O
the Federal statute, and the court would enter
tain petition to enon the collection of the tax
The injunction was made perpetual and tn
h plaintiff recovered his costs