The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1894-08-01
THE WELLINGTON BANK CASE.

TIE WELllNG ON BANK CASE.
A Matter of Unusual Interest to Tax-pay-
ers in General.
Our subscribers, and certainly the tax {
payers of Lorain county are very much
interested in pending litigation be-
tween the First National bank, Of Well
lington- in behalf Of some Of their
stockholders and LOrain county.
1t is claimed on the part Of the bank
that the provisions Of the national bank
ing law are such that stockholders in
Ohio have the right to Offset debts against
their bank stock, the same as they could
against prOmisory notes or other credits.
Many years ago cases involving this
provision Of the banking law were COM
menced in the United States court Of
Northern Ohio. These cases were finally |
taken to the supreme court Of the United |
States, as have been several similar cases
from other states. The United States |
supreme court in every case held in favor
Of the stockholders. 1t was supposed
that these decisions would forever settle
this question; and for many years, and
until 1S93 parties owning stock in ma
/ tional banks in Ohio were uniformly con-
ceded the right to offset debts against
their bank stock. To the surprise of at
, torneys familiar with the U. S. court de-
{ cisions, the supreme court of Ohio about
two years ago rendered decision that
denied this right to the owners of national
bank stock. AS consequence, the audit
or Of CuyahOga county, also OF LOrain
:, county, followed the decision Of the state
court. Immediately the aggrieved stock
holders lin all .Of the CuyahOga county
banks, that is, those who had made prop
er proof Of their having liabilities that
D, were entitled to be offset against their
T. stock, commenced proceedings to enjoin
er the treasurer from the collection of taxes
levied on their bank stock. Some OF the
n. cases we're commenced in the U. S. court,
Others in the county court. Judge Ricks
n held in the former cases in favor Of The
a stockholders, and Judge LamsOn rendered
similar decision in the cases that werC
commenced in the county court As thu
- right to these exemptions is one secured
by the U. S. law it was finally conceded
III by the attorneys connected with thes
Cleveland cases that the supreme cOur
ne Of Ohio had made an evident mistake
y. and that it would be unwise to inyoly
al Cuyahoga county in the expense Of fur
NOT ther litigations, because should case b
NJ taken to the supreme court Of Ohio an
X should that court not reconsider and r;
verse its previous decision, the stockhoid
ers could appeal from that court to tn
supreme court Of the United States where
in view of preceding decisions, ther
~ would be no doubt but the banks wOul
secure an easy and complete victory
is Judge Nye, however, in the case Of til
ev' suit in favor Of the stockholders OF til
ry, FIRST National bank of Wellington, dist
greed with Judge Ricks and Judge Ian
IN son, and held against the right to mai
Ir. the exemption.
gh We would suggest that it is the plal
,ge duty Of the commissioners Of our count
and treasurer, to ascertain whether 1t
N true that, under the advice OF cOmpetel
roe attorneys, the treasurer of Cuyahol
at county has abandoned all defense OF Il
similar suits that were commence
=. against him, and whether it is true tn
:. the stockholders of national banks
Cleveland are now conceded the right
10 these exemptions. Certainly it is n
wise to make the county the expense OF
long litigation unless there is at least
on' fair hope of success. On the other han
IN we would be in favor of the most yigC
GUS defense unles it is true, as elaine
de. that the decisions Of the .. s. court q
Of such as to insure final triumph to t
Of plaintiffs in these injunction suits.
on. should be pleased to hear from the 9th
side in our next issue, as the fOregOi
Iiss facts are given to us by parties Owni
his stock in the First National bank of We