The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-10
III TAXING OF BANKS
Question Of Jurisdiction Defined
by the Supreme Court.
The Tax Commission Does Not Possess
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Jurisdiction Over
National Bank Property.

The Supreme Court yesterday handed
down an opinion in the tax case Of the
Rushville National Bank against Thomas
A. Jones. treasurer. The action was brought
in the Rush Circuit Court by the = APP
pellees against the appellant as treasurer
of Rush county to enjoin the collection Of a
tax. The court overruled a demurrer to
the complaint, and the appellant failing
and refusing to answer further, the APP
pellees had judgment as prayed in their
complaint. The county board assessed the
bank on 500, S75, and the assessment has
never been set aside and no appeal taken
from the Board OF Review. In August, 1891,
the bank officials were summoned before
the State board to show why the valuation
of their property should not be raised. The
officials put in an appearance and objected
to any further increase on the ground that
no appeal had been taken from the action
of the ounty board, protesting that the
State board had no jurisdiction. The State
board overruled the objections and In
creased the valuation $4,000.
1t was commended before the court by the
appellant that the decree in the case should
be reversed, because the State Board of
Tax Commissioners had original jurisdic-
ton TO fix the value Of the property OF the
appellees for the purpose of taxation and
that having SO fixed it they are bound by
the VdludtlOn placed upon IL Dy Sucn DOdTu.
1t was further commended that because the
appellants are not the owners of the stock
issued by the bank, that for this reason the
suit should be prosecuted by the owners
In addition that there is a misjoinder OF
parties plaintiffs.
which was concurred in unanimously, held
that the appellant contends with much
plausibility that Sections 125 and 129 of the
statute when construed together confer
unOn the State board original jurisdiction
over all Of the property IN the State, both
real and PERSONAL. He stated. however,
Legislature the act must be construed as a
whole. THE act confers original exclusive
jurisdiction upon the State board" says
the opinion, "over railroad property, but Ii
does not in express terms confer such juris-
diction over property generally. To give
jurisdiction over the property of the APP
son of the fact that such jurisdiction is
conferred by the sections referred to-"
w are of the opinion" the judge said.
in substance. that the conclusion in the
case OF Cummings ct al. VS.. Strak ct al.
GA Northeastern Reporter, AD was the cor
rect one. The same questions involved in
u.s." The decision held that the State Board
of Tax Commissioners has no jurisdiction
over the class of property here involved.
The provision comforting upon the State
board the powers possessed by the county
board was intended, we think" the opinion
continues. Ito cenfer such powers in cases
ilC IL AlQu "a "a 0lNhCl ina vi
appellate. and was not intended to confer
original jurisdiction over all the property
in the State"
The court fails to agree with the appel
liant in his second contention. eff the tax
is assessed against the banks" 1t says, "the
fact that the stock may be owned by pri-
vate individuals furnishes no reason why
the suit may not be maintained by the
banks to enjoin an illegal tax assessed
against them. Indeed, if the tax is as
sessed against the banks they are the only
proper parties by whom a suit for that pur-
pose could be prosecuted" AS to the third
contention, il is held there is no community
Of interest shown. There is no connection
between the two. appellees. The Rush
County National Bank was the other ap-
pellee which Joined with the Rushville Ma
tional bank.
The conclusion of the court was that the
lower court erred in overruling the demur-
rer of the appellant to the complaint in
this cause. for the reason that II does not
show a joint cause of action in the ap-
pellees. Judgment was reversed, with d.
rections to the Circuit Court to sustain the
demurrer of the appellant.