Bradley v. the People

Decision Date01 December 1866
Citation71 U.S. 459,4 Wall. 459,18 L.Ed. 433
PartiesBRADLEY v. THE PEOPLE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The case came before that court on an appeal from a decision of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Peoria, by which they had refused to assess a state and county tax on the shares of Bradley and Howell in the First and Second National Banks of Peoria. The appeal was taken by the auditor of public accounts, in behalf of the State.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision of the board, and held the shareholders liable to the tax. The ground of exemption relied on, both before the supervisors and the Supreme Court, was want of authority in the board, within the forty-first section of the National Bank Act of June, 1864, and particularly within the second proviso of that section, which declares that the tax imposed on the shares of any banking associations under that act 'shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under the authority of the States.'

The act of the State, dated February 14th, 1857, and under which the tax was assessed, provides for taxing the capital stock of the banks, together with the surplus profits or reserved funds. No tax was imposed specifically on the shares held by the stockholder.

Messrs. Dexter and Walker, for the shareholders, plaintiffs in error:

The State has adopted as its policy, in the case of its banks the policy of taxing the capital and property of the bank as an entirety to the corporation itself, and thereby of relieving the shares in the hands of the holder. This may be not only the most simple, direct, and economical method, but also the more usual one of charging this kind of property with its proportionate burden for the support of the government.

But whether the better mode or not, it is the one and the only one prescribed or authorized by the legislature of the State, and if the property in question is to be taxed at all, it must be assessed to the corporation, as part of one entire and indivisible thing. The statute is, of course, in derogation of the common law, and one by which the property of the citizen is taken and appropriated to the purpose of the government. The precise mode prescribed for the imposition of the tax must therefore be pursued.,

The conclusion is then inevitable, that the shares of the capital stock of banks and banking associations in the State of Illinois, in the hands of the shareholder, are not subject to taxation, but are exempt therefrom.

Now Congress provides that on any tax imposed on shares of National banks in the hands of the holder, the rate of 'such taxation shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares of any of the banks organized under the authority of the State where such association is located.' And if on the shares of banks organized under the law of the State, there is no rate of taxation, it follows that no taxes whatever could be imposed on the shares in question.

Mr. Palmer, contra:

Neither the National government, the creator of the spocies of property now taxed, nor the shareholders can be interested in the methods which may be adopted by the State for the imposition of the tax.

The objects of the government and the rights of the shareholders are secure under any modes which only impose the same rate of taxation upon the shares in National banks, that is imposed upon the shares in any banks organized under the laws of the State.

The inquiry then is: Do the laws of Illinois impose or is it proposed under those laws to collect from the plaintiffs in error any greater rate of taxation than is imposed upon shareholders in State institutions?

It is said that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Harvey Coal & Coke Co v. Dillon
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1905
    ...may all be taxed. Bacon v. Board of State Tax Com'rs (Mich.) 85 N. W. 307, 60 L. R. A. 366, 86 Am. St. Rep. 524; Bradley v. People, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 459, 18 L. Ed. 433. They are regarded separate property. Do we not tax both the debt secured by a deed of trust and the land, and the vendor's ......
  • Exchange Nat. Bank v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 7, 1884
    ... ... untaxable bonds owned by the bank. ' We do not see how ... language could be more explicit ... In ... Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28, the question was ... whether a person residing in Ohio and owning shares of stock ... in a foreign corporation was ... 'actual, though indirect, taxation of the bonds,' but ... the holding by the majority of the court was affirmed in ... People v. Com'rs, 4 Wall. 244, and has since ... remained as settled law, so that the dissenting opinion of ... the chief justice only strengthens the ... ...
  • Person v. Board of State Tax Com'rs
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1922
    ... ... derived in the ordinary course of business. Bank v ... Barrett, 126 Cal. 413, 58 P. 914; People v. Ins ... Co., 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 353, 8 Am. Dec. 243; Ins. Co ... v. Phillips, 141 Mass. 535, 6 N.E. 534; Drake v ... Crane, 127 Mo. 85, ... See opinion of Mr. Justice ... Nelson in Van Allen v. Assessors, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) ... 573, 18 L.Ed. 229, and Bradley v. People of ... Illinois, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 459, 18 L.Ed. 433; Nat ... Bank v. Commonwealth, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 359, 19 L.Ed ... 701; 7 R. C ... ...
  • Henrys v. Raboin
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1946
    ...to by member Underwood was not given, but evidently it was People v. Bradley, 39 Ill. 130, decided in 1866 and reversed in People v. Bradley, 4 Wall. 459, 18 L.Ed. 433. Thus it will be noted that at the same session of the convention at which section 3 of the committee's report was adopted ......
  • 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