Anics' Sav. Bank v. Granger
| Citation | 17 R.I. 77,20 A. 202 |
| Parties | ANICS' SAV. BANK v. GRANGER, City Trevsurer. |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1890 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Assumpsit. Heard by the court on an agreed statement of facts, jury trial being waived.
Stephen A. Cooke, Jr., and Louis L. Angell, for plaintiff. Nicholas Van Slyck, City Sol., and Cyrus M. Van Slyck, Asst. City Sol., for defendant.
This action is brought to recover back the sum of $7,109.63, paid by the plaintiff bank to the defendant, as collector of taxes of the city of Providence, under protest; said sum being the amount of a tax assessed against it by the city assessors at their last assessment. The bank is a savings bank incorporated to receive deposits of money, which it is required to use and improve to the best advantage, dividing the profits among the depositors, in just proportion, with such reasonable deductions as the management of its affairs may require; the principal of the deposits, with the assessed dividends thereon, being subject to withdrawal by the depositors at such times and in such manner as the bank may direct. The general management is conferred on a board of trustees, who, the treasurer excepted, are required to serve without compensation, and who may at anytime, by vote of a majority of this whole number, "divide the whole property among the depositors in proportion to their respective interests therein, upon giving three months' notice thereof. "Said tax was assessed on personal estate in the keeping of the bank to the amount of $459,800, consisting wholly of reserved profits. The claim of the bank is that, under its charter, said reserved profits belong to the depositors, and are taxable to them, not to the bank. The claim of the city is that said reserved profits are the personal estate of the bank, and are taxable to it as such, the depositors having no interest in it. We consider it settled by the carefully considered decision of this court in Bank v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 478, that the plaintiff bank is not taxable for said reserved profits if they belong, as matter of law, to the depositors. The plaintiff bank in that case was a bank of discount and circulation, and the court held that the reserved profits or surplus earnings belonged to the stockholders, and was taxable only to them. The act of January, A. D. 1855, under which the case was decided, does not differ in any particular material to the question from the statute now in force. In Institution for Savings v. Gardiner, 4 R. I. 484, the court held that a savings bank was not taxable for bank-stocks in which it had invested its deposits for income, the stocks representing the deposits which were taxable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiser National Bank v. Jeffreys
...first having the assessment set aside or vacated." (Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester, 101 N.Y. 240, 4 N.E. 272; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Granger, 17 R. I. 77, 20 A. 202.) "Capital stock" and "shares of capital stock" are two distinct things, separably taxable. "Capital stock" as used in t......
-
Whitford, Bartlett & Co. v. Clarke
...practice has been recognized by our courts and is established. Dunnell Mfg. Co. v. Newell, 15 R. I. 233, 2 Atl. 766; Savings Bank v. Granger, 17 R. I. 77, 20 Atl. 202; Rumford Chemical Works v. Ray, 19 R. I. 456, 34 Atl. 814. The taxpayer, who thus pays under protest, should be placed in no......
-
The Iowa State Savings Bank v. The City Council of the City of Burlington
... ... City of Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 281; [98 Iowa 741] Bank ... v. Mumford, 4 R.I. 478; Bank v. Granger (R. I.) ... (17 R.I. 77, 20 A. 202). But some, if not all, of them, will ... be found to depend ... ...
- Rockwell v. Swift