Crawford County Trust & Savings Bank v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 25 January 1933
• Docket Number: No. 9548-9550.,9548-9550.
• Citation: 63 F.2d 342
• Parties: CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. CRAWFORD COUNTY, IOWA, et al. FARMERS' STATE BANK OF DOW CITY, IOWA, v. SAME. CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF DENISON, IOWA, v. SAME.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

63 F.2d 342 (1933)

CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. CRAWFORD COUNTY, IOWA, et al.

FARMERS' STATE BANK OF DOW CITY, IOWA, v. SAME.

CRAWFORD COUNTY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF DENISON, IOWA, v. SAME.

Nos. 9548-9550.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 25, 1933.

Addison G. Kistle, of Council Bluffs, Iowa (L. W. Powers, of Denison, Iowa, on the motion), for appellants.

L. H. Salinger, of Carroll, Iowa (Andrew Bell and Cloid Level, both of Denison, Iowa, on the motion), for appellees.

Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These are suits to recover taxes alleged to have been assessed in violation of law upon the stock of stockholders in the several banks, the taxes being paid by said banks, as stated in the petitions, to avoid the accumulation of penalties and collection by distress and sale of the bank's property.

The matters before us for consideration are motions of appellees to dismiss the appeals on the ground that these cases are not within the jurisdiction of either the trial or appellate court, in that: (a) These are not controversies involving $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs; and (b) that the relief sought is a mandatory direction for refund of taxes by the county treasurer or a money judgment against the county, neither of which is within the court's jurisdiction.

In No. 9549, which is typical, plaintiff's original bill was for recovery of $3,600, alleged to be the amount of taxes improperly levied and paid by the appellant bank. Later on certain items of plaintiff's claim for refund, aggregating $1,700, were by the court stricken from its petition, reducing its cause of action to $1,900; thereafter plaintiff filed an amended and substituted petition to comply with the direction of the court without intending to abandon its exception to rulings concerning portions of the original petition as amended. All these matters, therefore, are now before this court on appeal. However, appellee insists that the various shares of stock assessed were divided among eight persons, no one of whom could have a demand as large as $3,000 growing out of the taxation complained of. The same substantial situation exists, so far as the record before us shows, and so far as the question before us is concerned, with respect to cases Nos. 9548 and 9550.

The suit is brought by the bank as plaintiff for itself and on behalf of the holders of the stock assessed. The petition prays that the plaintiff have judgment against Crawford county for the amounts illegally assessed and paid, and that all the defendants, which include the officers of the county, be enjoined from proceeding to collect taxes for the year 1930 which would be in excess of taxes legally due.

It is unnecessary to discuss the merits. The contention here is, as justifying the motion to dismiss, that the real parties in interest are the stockholders, and that the bank, if a proper party, is not such to the extent of being able to aggregate the tax claims in order to present a case involving the jurisdictional amount. This contention is based largely, if not exclusively, as to jurisdictional amount, upon the decision of this court in First National Bank of Woodbine, Iowa, v. Harrison County, 57 F.(2d) 56. In that case the court held that distinct money interests belonging to litigants cannot be added together to create jurisdiction in federal courts not otherwise existing, and that the court sitting in equity has no jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. In that case not only the bank, but the stockholders, were named jointly as plaintiffs. That is an important distinction from the case at bar so far as the pleading itself is concerned. There were several questions for consideration in the Woodbine Case: (a) Jurisdiction of the action; (b) whether individual members of the board of supervisors should have been made parties; (e) whether appellants should have asserted and maintained their rights before administrative boards of the state of Iowa; (d) whether sufficient claims were filed before the proper authorities prior to the commencement of that action; and (e) whether the statute of limitations had run against a portion of the claims.

The court held, in effect, that no claim of an individual shareholder amounted to $3,000, and that the tax assessed against the bank was separate and distinct from that assessed against the shareholders who were joint plaintiffs with the bank; on this ground jurisdiction was denied. It was also shown that the appellants had not resorted to administrative remedies for relief, provided under the Iowa law, before the institution of that action. It was further held that a court sitting in equity has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus except in aid of jurisdiction previously acquired or after failure of the ordinary methods of execution; further, that appellants were not entitled under the laws of Iowa to a money judgment in the alternative as claimed.

We can make no criticism of the disposition of that case upon the facts shown. We hold that, in this case, the bank alone is the party plaintiff seeking to recover money it has paid out on behalf of its stockholders upon an alleged illegal assessment; the interests of its stockholders, of course,...