City Of Richmond v. Merch.S' Nat. Bank Of Richmond

Citation98 S.E. 643
Case DateMarch 13, 1919
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

98 S.E. 643

CITY OF RICHMOND.
v.
MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF RICHMOND.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 13, 1919.


Error to Hustings Court of Richmond.

Petition by the Merchants' National Bank of Richmond against the city of Richmond, to correct an assessment. Order granting plaintiff relief prayed for, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

H. R. Pollard, of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

Coke & Pickrell and Legh R. Page, all of Richmond, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, P. This case originated in the hustings court with a petition by the Merchants' National Bank of Richmond against the city of Richmond, to correct an alleged erroneous assessment for the year 1915, directly against the bank upon its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits, less the assessed value of its real estate and other deductions allowed by law, instead of being levied and assessed against the shareholders of the stock of the bank upon the value of their shares ascertained as the law prescribes. Moreover, complaint was made that the assessment, instead of being limited to the alleged maximum rate of 30 cents on each $100 of the ascertained value of the shares of stock, was fixed, levied, and collected at $1.40 on each $100 of such value. To an order of the hustings court granting the relief prayed for, this writ of error was allowed.

Two assignments of error were pressed: (1) That the court erred in overruling the motion of the city to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. (2) In establishing 30 cents on the $100 of value as the maximum rate that could be levied by the city on the shares of bank stock in place of $1.40.

The first assignment rests upon the contention that the assessment, in essence, is

[98 S.E. 644]

against the stockholders, and therefore the proceeding should have been in their name, and could not be maintained by the bank. Main St. Bank, Inc., v. City of Richmond, 122 Va. 574, 95 S. E. 386.

Whatever merit there may have been in this assignment in the first instance, the error in procedure was cured by the consent order, nunc pro tunc, whereby the amount of taxes ascertained to be due from the shareholders was assessed against them. The court, by virtue of the consent order, was within its powers thus to admit the shareholders (the real persons in interest) as parties, and to make a correct assessment against them. Commonwealth v. Schmelz, 114 Va. 364, 76 S. E. 905.

2. The remaining controverted question for our determination is, What was the maximum rate which the city of Richmond could lawfully levy on the shares of bank stock for the year 1915?

By way of premise to the consideration of this feature of the case, we may observe that the city of Richmond, under its charter, possesses plenary power of taxation, subject only to such limitations as may be placed upon the exercise of that power by the Constitution and Legislature.

The ordinance approved April 9, 1915, is founded upon the city charter and the segregation act passed by the General Assembly at its extra session of 1915, and approved March 15, 1915 (an emergency was declared to exist with respect to it, so that the act was in force from its passage). Acts 1915, c. 85, p. 119. The gravamen of the bank's complaint is that its capital is taxed at the rate of $1.40 on the $100, instead of 30 cents, the rate imposed on other moneyed Capital in the hands of individuals. Its contentions are based on an alleged conflict between the ordinance and section 1040a of the Code; section 168 of the state Constitution; the fact that at the date of the assessment the rate of taxation on all intangible property taxed that was also taxed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • First Nat. Bank v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 31528
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • May 23, 1932
    ...256 U.S. 635, 41 S.Ct. 619, 65 L.Ed. 1135, cited by counsel for plaintiffs, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (124 Va. 522, 98 S.E. 643) held that, inasmuch as the state banks were taxed at the same rate that national banks were taxed at, there was no violation of the federal statute......
  • Merchants Nat Bank of Richmond, Va v. City of Richmond, No. 240
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1921
    ...the relief prayed for, upon grounds not now material; but, upon review by the Supreme Court of Appeals, this was reversed (124 Va. 522, 98 S. E. 643), and the case remanded Page 637 for further proceedings in conformity with the views of that court; in consequence of which, correction of th......
  • Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat. B'K
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • January 15, 1925
    ...National Bank City of Richmond, 256 U.S. 635, 41 S.Ct. 619, 65 L.Ed. 1135. The stockholders were parties to that proceeding (124 Va. 524, 98 S.E. 643), and were there relieved of certain local taxes upon the ground that the evidence showed clearly that the rate of taxation imposed violated ......
  • Town Of Leesburg v. Bank
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 5, 1925
    ...Bank v. City of Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 41 S. Ct. 619, 65 L. Ed. 1135. The stockholders were parties to that proceeding (124 Va. 524, 98 S. E. 643), and were there relieved of certain local taxes upon the ground that the evidence showed clearly that the rate of taxation imposed violated U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • First Nat. Bank v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 31528
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • May 23, 1932
    ...256 U.S. 635, 41 S.Ct. 619, 65 L.Ed. 1135, cited by counsel for plaintiffs, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (124 Va. 522, 98 S.E. 643) held that, inasmuch as the state banks were taxed at the same rate that national banks were taxed at, there was no violation of the federal statute......
  • Merchants Nat Bank of Richmond, Va v. City of Richmond, No. 240
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1921
    ...the relief prayed for, upon grounds not now material; but, upon review by the Supreme Court of Appeals, this was reversed (124 Va. 522, 98 S. E. 643), and the case remanded Page 637 for further proceedings in conformity with the views of that court; in consequence of which, correction of th......
  • Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat. B'K
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • January 15, 1925
    ...National Bank City of Richmond, 256 U.S. 635, 41 S.Ct. 619, 65 L.Ed. 1135. The stockholders were parties to that proceeding (124 Va. 524, 98 S.E. 643), and were there relieved of certain local taxes upon the ground that the evidence showed clearly that the rate of taxation imposed violated ......
  • Town Of Leesburg v. Bank
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 5, 1925
    ...Bank v. City of Richmond, 256 U. S. 635, 41 S. Ct. 619, 65 L. Ed. 1135. The stockholders were parties to that proceeding (124 Va. 524, 98 S. E. 643), and were there relieved of certain local taxes upon the ground that the evidence showed clearly that the rate of taxation imposed violated U.......
  • 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