Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Perea
| Decision Date | 28 January 1891 |
| Parties | ALBUQUERQUE NAT. BANK v. PEREA et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The shares of stock of a national bank are taxable to the owners and the bank is not liable primarily, or as the agent of the shareholders, under the act of congress, or the revenue laws of this territory, for the payment of a tax levied upon such shares.
2. But if such bank, through its proper officers, voluntarily list such shares as the property of the bank for taxation, and the taxing officers of the territory, in pursuance of such erroneous listing, tax the same in the name of the bank equity will not relieve the bank from the payment of such tax by enjoining its collection, in the absence of a proper application to all the statutory tribunals authorized to hear such matter and determine and grant the proper relief.
3. Equity will not restrain by injunction the collection of a tax on the ground of excessive valuation, unless the party complaining has exhausted his legal remedies.
Appeal from district court, Bernalillo county.
William B. Childers, for appellant.
E. L Bartlett, Sol. Gen., for appellees.
The complainant, on the 3d day of November, A. D. 1888, filed his bill of complaint in the district court for the county of Bernalillo against the defendants, Jose L. Perea, sheriff and ex officio collector of taxes, and Clifford L Jackson, district attorney, of said county, for the purpose of obtaining an injunction restraining them from enforcing the collection of certain delinquent taxes assessed to the complainant. The bill, in substance, alleges that complainant made due returns to the county assessor of all its property for taxation. That at such time it protested against the assessment of its property, to-wit, its capital stock and surplus, at any higher rate of valuation than other property taxable in said county, and that it ought not to be assessed at its par value; that is, "that its stock could not be assessed at par, and its surplus at its full money value because other property in said county and territory is not assessed at its full value." That the assessor, disregarding such protest, assessed said property at its full value. That, upon complainant's appeal from the action of the assessor to the board of county commissioners sitting as a board of equalization, the assessment on its surplus was reduced to 85 per cent. of its par value, while that of its capital stock was left unchanged. That its property valuation then stood as follows: Capital stock, $100,000; surplus, $10,000; total, $110,000. The bill proceeds: That bank-stocks in a neighboring county are assessed at less than 85 per cent. of their value. That such discrimination is inequitable, unjust, and unlawful. That the amount of taxes upon said equalized assessment is the sum of $2,189. That such amount, if lawfully and equitably assessed, would be reduced to $1,532.30, which sum complainant brings into court, and tenders to defendant Perea. That said defendant refused to accept the same, and threatened to levy upon complainant's property to enforce the payment of the full amount so assessed. The bill continues: "Your orator further alleges that, should it pay the sum so unlawfully demanded of it by virtue of said assessment, and bring suit at law for the recovery thereof as is illegal and unjust, such suit would be unavailing, for the reason that any judgment recovered by your orator against said county of Bernalillo or territory of New Mexico would be paid in warrants of the said county and territory, which said warrants are not worth their face value, but are sold upon the market at a discount, there being no funds in the treasury with which to pay the same, if presented." The bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial