Citizens Sav Bank of Owensboro v. City of Owensboro
Decision Date | 03 April 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 669,669 |
Citation | 19 S.Ct. 571,43 L.Ed. 840,173 U.S. 636 |
Parties | CITIZENS' SAV. BANK OF OWENSBORO v. CITY OF OWENSBORO et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. F. Ellis, Geo. W. Jolly, Wilfred Carico, and J. A. Dean, for plaintiff in error.
Chapeze Wachen, J. D. Atchison, and Robert S. Todd, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, the Citizens' Savings Bank of Owensboro, Ky., was created, by an act of the general assembly of the state of Kentucky approved May 12, 1884, with authority to do a general banking business.The legislative charter provided that the corporation should exist for a period of 30 years from the date of the act, and in section 7 it was provided that on the 1st day of January in each year the bank should pay 'into the state treasury, for the benefit of revenue proper, fifty cents on each one hundred dollars of stock held and paid for in said bank, which shall be in full of all tax and bonus thereon of every kind.'
At the time this charter was granted there existed on the statute books of Kentucky a law enacted February 14, 1856, providing as follows:
* * *
It would seem that from the date of its creation until the year 1886 the bank was called upon to pay only the taxes provided in the seventh section of its charter.In 1886(Sess. Acts Ky. 1885-86, pp. 144-147, 201)the legislature of Kentucky adopted what is designated in the briefs of counsel as the 'Hewitt Act,' containing the following provisions as to the taxation of banks:
* * *
The Citizens' Savings Bank accepted the Hewitt act in the mode provided, and thereafter paid the tax specified therein.
In 1891 Kentucky adopted a new constitution, which contained the following:
The state of Kentucky, in 1892, enacted a law, providing, among other things, for the assessment and taxation by the state, counties, and municipalities of banking and other corporations.This law was in absolute conflict with the Hewitt act, and by special provision, as well as by necessary legal intendment, operated, if the constitution had not already done so, to repeal the system of bank taxation established by the Hewitt act.Without detailing the scheme of taxation created by the law of 1892, it suffices to say that it organized a state board, whose duty it was to ascertain and fix the value of what was termed the 'franchises' of banks and other corporations, referred to in the law; and upon the amount so fixed the general state tax was levied.It was, besides, made the duty of the board to certify its valuation of the property or franchises to the proper county or municipality in which the corporation was located, so that the sum of this assessment might become the basis upon which the local taxes should be laid.The city of Owensboro, where the Citizens' Savings Bank was located, established by ordinances the rate of municipal taxes for the years 1893 and 1894, and the sum so fixed was assessed upon the valuation of the franchises or property of the bank which had been certified by the state board in claimed conformity to the statute of 1892.The bank refused to pay these taxes, and a levy was made by the tax collector upon some of its property, and garnishment process was also issued against several of its debtors.Thereupon this suit was commenced by a petition, on behalf f the bank, to enjoin the city of Owensboro and its tax collector from enforcing the taxes in question.
The averments of the petition and of the amendments thereto for it was twice amended—assailed the validity of the tax on several grounds, all of which are, substantially included in the following summary:
First.That the board of state valuation had no power, under the constitution and laws of the state, to make an assessment for local taxation, and, if it had such power, had not exercised it lawfully, because the method of valuation pursued by it was so arbitrary as to cause its action to be void.Second.That no notice of the assessment had been given the officials, as required by the state law.Third.That the taxes violated the equality clause of the stateconstitution, because, by the method adopted in making the assessment, the property of the bank had been valued by a rule which caused it to be assessed at proportionately one-third more than the sum assessed against other property in the city of Owensboro, and by one-half more than the valuation at which the property of other taxpayers throughout the state was assessed.Fourth.That the taxes violated the state law and constitution, because based upon an assessment made by the state board, and not on an assessment made by the city; and that they were likewise illegal because the levy of the tax predicated upon the assessment by the state board was dehors the powers of the city of Owensboro under the state laws.Fifth.That the taxes, moreover, violated the equality clause of the stateconstitution, because, as there were certain national banks doing business in the city of Owenboro against whom the franchise tax provided by the state law could not be enforced without a violation of the law of the United States, therefore these banks could not be taxed for the franchise tax, and not to tax them, while taxing the petitioner, would bring about inequality of taxation, and hence be a violation of the stateconstitution.Sixth.The taxes were expressly and particularly attacked on the ground that the Hewitt act, and the acceptance of the terms thereof, constituted an irrevocable contract between the state and the bank, exempting it from all taxation other than as specified in the Hewitt act, and therefore that the revenue act of 1892 and the levy of the taxes in question by the city of Owensboro violated the contract rights of the bank, which were protected from impairment by the constitution of the United States.
In further support of this ground the petition charged that, at the time the Hewitt act was passed, the bank had an irrevocable contract arising from section 7 of its charter, limiting taxation to the sum there specified, which right the bank had surrendered in consequence of the contract embodied in the Hewitt act.It was averred that this surrender of its contract right to enjoy the limited...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins
... ... Company v. Kansas 216 U.S. 68, 54 L. Ed., 386; Bank ... of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; ... citizens of the United States. A corporation is a person ... under ... Citizens ... Saving Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U.S. 636, 644, 43 ... L.Ed. 840, 843, 19 S.Ct. 530, ... ...
-
Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933
...of a legislative policy however expressed—whether embodied in a charter or in a system of taxation. Citizens' Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U.S. 636, 644, 19 S.Ct. 530, 571, 43 L.Ed. 840; Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U.S. 408, 414, 415, 31 S.Ct. 534, 55 L.Ed. 789; Erie R. Co. v. Willi......
-
Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
...492, 22 L. Ed. 595;Bradley v. McAtee, 7 Bush (Ky.) 667, 3 Am. Rep. 309;People v. Roper, 35 N. Y. 629;Citizens' Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636, 19 Sup. Ct. 571, 43 L. Ed. 840;Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 174 U. S. 412, 19 Sup. Ct. 747, 43 L. Ed. 1028. In Northern Central Railway Co. ......
-
State ex rel. Wyoming Agricultural College v. Irvine
... ... enumerated. ( Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117; ... Bank v. Foster, 9 Wyo. 157; Denver v. Wyatt, 28 ... Colo. 129; ... v. Hamilton, 146 U.S. 258; Bank v ... Owensboro, 173 U.S. 636; R. R. Co. v. Maryland, ... 187 U.S. 258; ... located in or near the City of Laramie. * * * * The objects ... of such University ... a citizen or a number of citizens in making a gift to the ... institution ... In ... ...