Travelers Insurance Company v. State of Connecticut

Decision Date05 May 1902
Docket NumberNo. 219,219
Citation46 L.Ed. 949,22 S.Ct. 673,185 U.S. 364
PartiesTRAVELERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Section 2 of chapter 153 of the Public Acts of Connecticut, passed in 1897, reads as follows:

'The cashier or secretary of each corporation whose stock is liable to taxation, and not otherwise taxed by the provisions of this title, shall, on the 1st day of October, annually, or within ten days thereafter, deliver to the comptroller a sworn list of all its stockholders residing without this state on said day, and the number and market value of the shares of stock therein then belonging to each; and shall, on or before the 20th day of October, annually, pay to the state 1 1/2 per cent of such value; and if any such cashier or secretary shall neglect to comply with the provisions of this section he shall forfeit to the state $100, in addition to said 1 1/2 per cent so required to be paid.'

This method of assessment and taxation of nonresident stockholders in insurance corporations has been in force in Connecticut since 1866, although at first the rate of tax was only 1 per cent. Pub. Acts 1866, chap. 29.

By § 1 of chap. 50 of the Public Acts of 1899 it is provided:

'Section 1923 of the General Statutes is hereby amended to read as follows: When not otherwise provided in its charter, the stock of every corporation shall be personal property, and be transferred only on its books in such form as the directors shall prescribe; and such corporation shall at all times have a lien upon all the stock owned by any person therein, for all debts due to it from him; and any corporation desiring to enforce such lien may give notice to such stockholder, his executor or administrator, and if there be none, his heir at law, that unless he shall pay his indebtedness to said corporation within three months it will sell said stock; and such corporation may prescribe by its by-laws the manner of giving notice required by this section, but the notice of sale shall in no case be given until the liability has become fixed.'

The original section in the General Statutes, enacted in 1888, is precisely the same as the first half of the amended section, and secured to the corporation a lien upon the stock for debts due to it by the stockholder, the amendment consisting in the addition of the last half, which provides the method of enforcing such lien.

Section 3836 of the General Statutes, as amended by chapter 63 of the Public Acts of 1889, reads:

'Sec. 3836. Shares of the capital stock of any bank, national banking association, trust, insurance, turnpike, bridge, or plankroad company, owned by any resident of this state, shall be set in his list at its market value in the town in which he may reside; but so much of the capital of any such company as may be invested in real estate, on which it is assessed and pays a tax, shall be deducted from the market value of its stock, in its returns to the assessors.'

This action was commenced by the state of Connecticut to recover of the Travelers' Insurance Company, under the first of the statutes quoted, taxes due for the year 1898, from nonresident stockholders. The defendant answered, alleging that its capital stock consisted of 10,000 shares, of which 8,201 were owned by residents and 1,799 by nonresidents of the state; that it was the owner of a large amount of real estate on which it had been assessed and had paid a tax, and adding these averments:

'7. The market value of the stock of the defendant company on the 1st day of October, 1898, was $250 per share.

'8. All of the said resident owners of said stock were assessed upon the stock owned by them respectively on the 1st day of October, 1898, at an assessed valuation equal to the said market value of said stock less a large deduction therefrom by reason of the company's said investments in real estate.

'9. The amount per share sought to be collected from the defendant in this action as a tax upon the stock owned by said nonresident shareholders is far in excess of the amount per share paid and required to be paid as a tax by the several resident shareholders aforesaid on the stock owned by them on the said 1st day of October, 1898.'

A demurrer to this answer was sustained and judgment entered for the state, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (73 Conn. 255, 47 Atl. 299), and thereupon the case was brought here on error.

Messrs. William R. Matson and Lucius F. Robinson for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles Phelps for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The single question presented for our consideration is whether this legislation of the state of Connecticut in respect to the taxation of the shares of stock in a local corporation held by nonresidents is in conflict with ¶1 of § 2 of article 4 of the Federal Constitution, or the 14th Amendment thereto. It is alleged that there is such discrimination between resident and nonresident stockholders as works a denial of the equal protection of the laws, and to the prejudice of citizens of other states. The stock of the nonresident stockholder is assessed at its market value, without any deduction on account of real estate held by the corporation. The stock of the resident stockholder is assessed at its market value, less the proportionate value of all real estate held by the corporation upon which it has already paid a tax. As thus stated, there would appear to be a wrongful discrimination, and that the nonresident stockholder was subjected to a larger burden of taxation than the resident stockholder, and this, not as a result of the action of any mere ministerial officers in making assessments, but by reason of the direct command of the statute to include the real estate in the valuation in the one case and to exclude it in the other.

But this apparent discrimination against the nonresident disappears when the system of taxation prevailing in Connecticut is considered. By that system the nonresident stockholder pays no local taxes. He simply pays a state tax,—contributes so much to the general expenses of the state. While, on the other hand, the resident stockholder pays no tax to the state, but only to the municipality in which he resides. In other words, the state imposes no direct taxes for its benefit upon the property belonging to residents, but collects its entire revenue from corporations, licenses, etc. The rate of state tax upon the nonresident stockholder is fixed, 15 mills on a dollar, applying equally to all, while the rate of local taxation varies in the several cities and towns, according to the judgment of their local authorities as to the amount necessary to be raised for carrying on the municipal government. Obviously the varying difference in the rate of the tax upon the resident and the nonresident stockholders does not invalidate the legislation. How, then, can it be that a difference in the basis of assessment is such an unjust discrimination as necessarily vitiates the tax upon the nonresident? The resident stockholder does not pay the 15 mills to the state which is demanded of the nonresident, and the nonresident stockholder does not pay to any locality the sum, greater or less than 15 mills, which may be imposed by the authorities of that locality. In respect to this the supreme court, in its opinion, said (p. 281, Atl. p. 308):

'It is unnecessary to consider whether, or under what circumstances, the limitations imposed by a state in respect to the mutual relations of members of its corporations in the matter of taxation may transform legislation for that purpose into a denial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • State v. Santiago
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 25 August 2015
    ...but their unenforceability. As this court stated in State v. Travelers Ins. Co., 73 Conn. 255, 47 A. 299 (1900), aff'd, 185 U.S. 364, 22 S. Ct. 673, 46 L. Ed. 949 (1902), "[n]o court can directly set aside an [a]ct of the legislature; and the power to indirectly invalidate legislation is on......
  • Clark v. City of Burlington
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 19 November 1928
    ...same rules cannot be applied to the listing and valuation of all kinds of property." In accord is Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364, 371, 372, 22 S. Ct. 673, 46 L. Ed. 949, 954. The constitutional requirement of proportional contributions for the support of the government wa......
  • Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Flora Drug Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 22 May 1933
    ...person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Merchants Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U.S. 461, 463; Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U.S. 364, 371. The Constitution of the United States does not profess in all cases to protect property, or the use of it from unjust o......
  • Blodgett v. Holden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 17 February 1926
    ...South Carolina v. United States, 26 S. Ct. 110, 199 U. S. 437, 448, 50 L. Ed. 261, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Connecticut, 22 S. Ct. 673, 185 U. S. 364, 46 L. Ed. 949. It is the conclusion of the court that the retroactive provisions of the law under consideration do not c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT