Case Name: David M. Howell v. The Village of Cassopolis
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1877-01-19
Citations: 35 Mich. 471
Docket Number: 
Parties: David M. Howell v. The Village of Cassopolis.
Judges: The other justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 446–448

Head Matter:
David M. Howell v. The Village of Cassopolis.
National bank stock: Taxation. The national banking law (R. S. of XL S., g 5819) authorizing the taxation of national bank stock in the hands of individuals in such manner and place as the state may determine, subject only to the conditions, that the rate shall not exceed that of taxation on other moneyed capital of citizens, and that non-residents of the state holding stock shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located, the legislation of Michigan (S. L. 1875, p. 185), providing for the taxation of such stock in the township where the bank is located, except that where a stockholder resides in another township in the same county, he is taxable in his own township, is valid.
^National bank stock: Taxation: Statutes construed. XJnder the statutes (Comp. L. 1871, § 97U) as it existed prior to the act of 1875 (S. L. 1875, p. 185), shares of non-residents of the place where the bank was located, who were not non-residents of the state, were nob taxable anywhere.
Village charters: Construction: General taxing laws. Village charters will not he so construed as to change the operation of the general taxing laws, unless such an intent is plainly expressed.
Stock: Situs: Domicile. The stock of a non-resident can in no proper sense he regarded as personal property within the village where the bank is located, unless some statute has so declared; intangible property, like stock, must always follow the domicile of the owner, unless separated from it by positive law.
National bank stock: Taxation: General statute: Village charier: Non-residents. The general statute (S. h. 1875, p. 185) providing for the taxation of hank stock held' by nonresidents of the town in which the bank is located, who are residents of another township in the same county, in the township where they reside, the charter of the village of Oassopolis, authorizing the taxation of “all property, real and personal, within the limits of said village” not exempt from taxation for county and township purposes, does not warrant the taxation by the village of the shares of stockholders who reside in another township in the same county.
Heard January 11.
Decided January 19.
Case made from Cass Circuit.
This was an action to recover back a tax of one dollar and fifty cents, levied by the village on the national bank stock of the plaintiff, who was a resident of another township in Cass county. The tax was paid under protest to save plaintiff’s property from sale on a seizure by the village marshal by virtue of process to enforce the payment of such tax. Judgment passed for defendant, and the plaintiff brings the case up for review.
Howell & Carr, for plaintiff.
L. H. Glover, for defendant.
Howell’s Annotated Statutes, § 1008, Subdivision 1: Putnam v. Fife Lake Township, 45 Mien., 125. For discussion of taxation of National bank stock, see: First National Bank', St. Joseph v. Township St. Joseph, 46 Id., 526.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.:
The village of Cassopolis levied taxes on the national bank stock of plaintiff, who was a resident of another township in the same county, claiming the right to do so because the bank was located in the village. The charter of the village authorizes the taxation of " all *property, real and personal, within the limits of said village," if not exempt from taxation for county and township purposes.
The general laws of the state provide for the taxation of national bank stock in the township where the bank is located, except that where a stockholder resides in another township in the same county, he is taxable in his own township.— Laws 1875, p. 185. Before the act of 1875 no shares of nonresidents of the place where the bank was located were taxable there, unless against non-residents of the state.— G. L. § 974.
The national banking law allows the stock in the hands of individuals to be taxed in such manner and place as the state may determine, subject only to two conditions, one of which is, that the rate shall not be greater than that of taxation on other moneyed capital of citizens, and the other, that nonresidents of the state holding stock shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located. — R. S. of U. S., § 5219.
The state legislation is therefore valid, and the only question is, whether the village charter authorizes taxation of stock in the hands of owners not residing in Cassopolis, but in another town in Cass county.
There is no proper sense in which the stock of a non-resident can be regarded as personal property within the village, unless some statute has so declared. If the bank itself could be taxed, no doubt its personal property would be within the village, because following the domicile. But intangible property, like stock, must always follow the domicile, unless separated from it by positive law.
The only laws of this state which create this separation define its extent, and do not authorize it as against residents of the same county who reside in another township. The act of congress only requires it in case of non-residents of the state, and as to all state residents, authorizes the state to determine its own policy. The statutes are too plain to require construction.
*It would be contrary to all sound rules of construction to adopt an interpretation which should change the operation of the general taxing laws in particular localities, unless where there is a plain intent to do so. In the present case the intent is, we think, quite as plainly opposed to any such discrimination-, and except for the general laws, stock of non-residents of the village could not be taxed at all.
The judgment below must be reversed, and judgment entered on the finding in favor of the' plaintiff in error for one dollar and fifty cents damages, with costs of both courts.
The other justices concurred.