The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-02-12

| the purchaser have no notice OF the fraud
| ulent intent OF the grantor.
! In the case at bar the circumstances
| under which the sale was made. ana us
| very unusual terms plainly manifest an
| Illegal purpose.
2 RI Is not necessary to prove 'ha'
grantee had positive knowledge OF the
fraudulent Intent OF the grantor. which
NAV be a Just and legal implication from
the evidence as also may notice or the
illegal intent be a just and legal imputa-
ton from knowledge possessed by the
grantee. II Is sufficient TO prove that
grantee had knowledge OF facts and cir
cymstances which were naturally and
Justly calculated TO excite suspicion In the
mind OF person OF ordinary care ana
prudence. and put him on inquiry: which
inquiry would necessarily have led 10 dis
covery OF the facts from which the law
imputes fraud 10 the crantor. Bump. on
Fraud Cow. Sec. l9.
SHARES. NOT BANK CAPITAL.
Union Bank OF Richmond VS.. city OF
Richmond. Affirmed. opinion by Judge
Harrison
This was nm action 70 recover taxes
paid by the bank 10 the city.
The declaration AYERS that the bnnk
was compelled 10 pay under protest s6.l3
as a tax on 1895 shares Of capital stock
"a
that this tax was Illegal. because the
value OF the shares was constituted 10
the extent Of $4,000 OF property, upon
which the tax had been paid. or was
exempt. that the ordinance was repug-
nant TO the Constitution OF the State.
sc. IL only seeks to recover four thou
sand and odd dollars, and the only aues-
ton raised IL whether the tax was IL
legal. because to' that extent IL was i'm
posed upon 1919 900 Of the banks capital
that ought to have been deducted from
the market value Of the shares OF stock
before the assessment was made.
Held: The tax was not imposed upon
the capital OF the bank. but upon the
shares Of stock issued by the bank. and
the bank has no right to deduct its CAPT
tai from the stockholders capital in or
der 10 ascertain what the stockholders
must pay taxes upon
The city charter confers the general
power OF taxation. limited by the laws
OF the State and OF the United States.
and the ordinance is in conformity with
the statute in similar cases for State
purposes. Acts 1854 y. $50
Under this statute, no tax can he as
sessed upon the capital of any bank. but
the stoc kholders are taxed on the market
value Of their shares at the same rate
as other moneyed capital of other citi-
zens. and the banks are required 10 pay
into the treasury OF the State the tax
so imposed.
The United states Supreme Court has
frequently decided this question adverse
Jy TO the plaintiffs view. The property
or interest % a stakeholder in an incor-
porated bank commonly called a share
the aggregate totality Of the shares be-
ing called the capital Of the bank, IS
different thing from the mOneyed cap
tai of the bank held and owned by the
corporation. This capital may consist
Of cash. or of bills and notes discounted.
or of real estate combined with these.
The whole of 1t may be invested in bonds
Of the government. or I'm bonds Of the
State, or in bonds and mortgages. II is
owned by the bank as a corporate entity
and not by the stockholders A tax upon
this capital is a tax upon the bank and
II I'm government securities it can not be
taxed. nor can the corporation be taxed
as the owner OF such securities. But the
shareholders or stockholders may
be taxed by the States on
stock or shares so held by them, al
though all the capital of the bank he in
vested In federal securities, provided the
taxation be not In conflict tn the act
Of 1864, First National bank VS. Common
wealth. Wallace. S53. 359: Van Allen VS.
Commonwealth, Id. 25j Mercantile
Bank VS.. ~ Y. 12l L. S. lSS The fact
that this tax on the shares of the stock
holders is required TO be paid by the Of
ficers Of the bank does not constitute IL
a tax on the capital Of the bank 1t is
the only method of reaching the shares
Of nonresident stockholders. National
Bank vs.. Commonwealth. supra.
.. Under the statute the situs of bank
stock for the purpose Of taxation is
where the bank is located and it is inn
material where the stakeholder resides.
The amendment TO the declaration. aver
ring non-residence Of stockholders was,
therefore, properly rejected by the court
below.
other questions. as that the bank has
no right to maintain iris action, the tax
being against the stockholders and the
payment voluntary one are not con-
sidered. the case being disposed Of as
made by the pleadngs on its merits.
Summary:
Judge James Keith, P.-Sherwood &
Others W. Atlantic K Danville u. T.
Petition for mandamus. Mandamus re-
fused
Judge John w. Riely.-Ferguson & Co.
1t ais vs.. Daughtrey ct ais. From the
Circuit Court of Nansemond county. He
Versed.
Judge Geo NJ. HarrisOn.-UniCn Bank
Of Richmond VS. City of Richmond. From
the Circuit Court city of Richmond. AZ
frmed.
Mutual Fire ms co. Ct Loudoun VS..
Ward. Circuit Court OF Frederick coun-
". Writ of error and supersedeas. Bond
s. COO
Jamson VS.. Rixey. argued by c. D.
Crawling. for appellant, and J. S. Bar
bour. Esq, fer appellee.
Barton N. Wise Esq, allowed TO prac-
tice as counsel IN this court
Turtchett ". Solomon Sheriff. writ Of
habeas corpus issued returnable to-day
at II o'clock
After the case under argument Is con-
cluded the court will only hear two more.
which will be Nos 60 and Co. before ad-
jCurning for the term.
The court will meet on the 9th or
March for the March term. The term be-
gins regularly on the 9TH hut that day
being Friday. 1t has been determined to
begin on Tuesday. the 9Th.
w w. SCOTT.
Still Considering IT,
Mr. George Ainslie. who was elected