The San Francisco call., 1897-02-11
Assessor Siebe Gathered in
Thousands of
Dollars.
Now Some Of the Local Banks
Sue to Have Their Cash
Returned.
Judge Seawell Intimates That General
Deposits Abr cad Will Have to
Be Tax.d Here.

Judge Seawell of the Superior Court
yesterday handed down an important
opinion in the case of the Nevada Bank
OF San Francisco against the City and
County of San Francisco wherein it is
sought 10 recover $40, ,613 06 alleged to have
been Improperly collected for taxes, mas
much as the Assessor levied taxes on
moneys that the bank alleged were de-
posted with correspondents and other
banks outside of the State of California.
The decision, which overrules the City's
demurrer to the banks complaint, has a
direct bearing On the revenue of the City,
for if the theory of the Nevada Bank is
right the cash revenue of the City from
taxation of personal property will be di-
minished at least 5000. 600, and the bank
ing institutions of the City will, of course,
be benefited to that extent.
The full text of Judge SeawelFs decision
Is as follows:
do not think that the complaint presents
the question discussed by counsel in reference
to the moneys deposited with plaintiffs CORE
sspondents in places outside the State of Cali
fornia.
1t is alleged in the complaint that on the
first Monday in March, 1896. plaintiff had on
deposit with its correspondents in London
Paris, New York, Boston and Philadelphia
mentioned sum of money on the day and year
last aforesaid was situated wholly without the
territorial limits and jurisdiction of the State
of California
1t is true that a general depositor in a bank
is simply creditor, and it is also true that in
strictly legal sense such a person has not
any money on deposit at all. The money
which he deposited Is the property of tne
bank. and the relation of the parties is that
of debtor and creditor
When the plaintiff alleges that at a ce rtajn
date 1t had on deposit with its correspondent
in London certain sum of money, which was
then situated wholly outside the State, am
not at liberty 10 assume, upon q general de-
murrer, that plaintiff did not own the money
alleged to be on deposit or that plaintiff was
merely the creditor of the correspondent. The
demurrer 10 the com p!aint will therefore be
overruled.
For several years it has been noted that
on the day the tax levy is made many of
the local banks have large amounts of
money on deposit beyond the limits of
the State. If the theory advanced in this
suit is upheld by the courts then all the
banks Will escape taxation on the moneys
thus deposited outside the State. II the
City wins the suit the taxes will have to
be paid, no matter where the coin is situ-
ated.
Deputy City Attorney Rhodes Borden
has charge of the City's end of the litiga-
ton, and when apprised of the fact that
his demurrer was overruled said that he
that the deposits mentioned in the banks
complaint are general deposits and that
as such they must be taxed here.
In support of this position Mr.. Borden
will rely on some of the points set forth IN
h.J brief on the demurrer. Briefly stated,
the main point is as follows:
When plaintiff deposited its money abroad Il
lost all property in the money itself and took
instead the promise of the banks outside of
the State to honor its DIR ats up to the amount
deposited. This promise to pay is but chose
In action-an Intangible species of pro operty be-
longing 10 the person who has the right to en-
force IL and is taxable a solvent credit at
the domicile of the own T; to wit, here in
California 1t is not taxable anywhere else.
Mr.. Borden thought that the City had
right TO assume, in the absence of any al
legation in the complaint to the contrary.
that the deposit was general deposit, but
Judge Seawell ruled against him on that
matter. and testimony must be heard
touching the real status of the money.
al am perfectly satisfied that the court
is with me in regard TO the law, for that
appears on the face OF the opinion" said
Mr.. Borden. ut comes down to a oues-
tion of fact. Ii those deposits were spe-
| cial deposits we have no right to tax them
any more than we would have to tax q