Howell v. Village of Cassopolis
| Decision Date | 19 January 1877 |
| Citation | 35 Mich. 471 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | David M. Howell v. The Village of Cassopolis |
Heard January 11, 1877
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.
Judgment 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.
Howell & Carr, for plaintiff.
L. H Glover, for defendant.
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 non-residents of the place where the bank was located were taxable there, unless against non-residents of the state.--C. 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 non-residents 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Miller
...v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609. [26] First Nat. Bank v. Douglas Co. 3 Dill. 298. [27] Nat. Commercial Bank v. Mobile, 62 Ala. 284. [28] Howell v. Cassopolis, 35 Mich. 471; v. Fayetteville, 75 N.C. 445; Buie v. Fayetteville, 79 N.C. 267; North Ward Nat. Bank v. Newark, 39 N.J.Law, 380; Nat. Bank v. ......
- Jones v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
- McGee v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
- Michigan C. R. Co. v. Campau