FIRST NAT. BANK OF WOODBINE, IOWA, v. Harrison County

• Decision Date: 26 February 1932
• Docket Number: No. 9146.,9146.
• Citation: 57 F.2d 56
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF WOODBINE, IOWA, et al. v. HARRISON COUNTY, IOWA, et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

57 F.2d 56 (1932)

FIRST NAT. BANK OF WOODBINE, IOWA, et al. v. HARRISON COUNTY, IOWA, et al.

No. 9146.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 26, 1932.

Harry L. Robertson, of Council Bluffs, Iowa (Paul E. Robertson, of Council Bluffs, Iowa, on the brief), for appellants.

Paul E. Roadifer, of Council Bluffs, Iowa, for appellees.

Before KENYON and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and REEVES, District Judge.

REEVES, District Judge.

This is an action in equity by the First National Bank of Woodbine, Iowa, and its stockholders, as plaintiffs, against Harrison county, Iowa, and the board of supervisors of said Harrison county, Iowa, as defendants.

The proceeding is for the recovery of an alleged illegal tax which, it is claimed, was imposed and collected during the years 1914 to 1918, inclusive.

The plaintiffs' bill contains averments of an assessment against said bank and its stockholders contrary to the provisions of section 548, title 12 of the United States Code (12 USCA § 548) relating to the subject of banks and banking. This section is 5219 of the United States Revised Statutes. Plaintiffs' bill was dismissed by the chancellor below, and an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

While the evidence indicates an illegal discrimination in the levy and assessment of said taxes, yet by the stipulation of the parties that question is not now before the court.

The questions for our consideration are: (a) Jurisdiction of the action; (b) whether individual members of the board of supervisors should have been made parties; (c) whether appellants should have asserted and maintained their rights before administrative boards of the state of Iowa at the time the alleged illegal assessment was made; (d) whether sufficient claims were filed before the proper authorities prior to the commencement of this action; and (e) whether the statute of limitations had run against a portion of the claims. It is only necessary to discuss a few of the above questions. Other facts will be stated, as they may become pertinent, in the course of this opinion.

1. At the outset, we are concerned with a serious question as to the jurisdiction of the court. It is specifically alleged in the bill "that the said assessors of Woodbine, Iowa, and the other public officers above referred to in each of said years entered a so-called or purported assessment against the said shareholders of said First National Bank of Woodbine, Iowa, upon the alleged actual value of the shares of stock owned by each of said shareholders in said banking association, and that the amount of the total taxes on the shares at the valuation placed upon the said shares by said public officers, largely exceeded the value of the sum of $3,000 to-wit, the total sum of $8,524." No claim of an individual shareholder amounts to $3,000. In Sioux Falls National Bank v. Swenson (C. C.) 48 F. 621, loc. cit. 625, it was held that: "The tax assessed against the bank is separate and distinct from that assessed against the shareholders, and the tax assessed against one shareholder cannot be collected from another. If the tax collector should undertake to enforce the payment of the taxes complained of, he would proceed against the property of each shareholder separately for the tax due from him alone."

Jurisdiction of the court in the Swenson Case was denied because, as said by Judge Shiras, "while the joinder of separate and distinct claims or rights of action may be permitted under proper circumstances, for convenience' sake, and to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and to escape unnecessary costs, it is not permitted to add together the several and distinct money interests belonging to the litigants, in order to create a jurisdiction which does not otherwise exist." Walter v. Northeastern Railroad Company, 147 U. S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 348, 37 L. Ed. 206; Northern Pacific Railroad v. Walker, 148 U. S. 391, 13 S. Ct. 650, 37 L.Ed. 494.

2. Although appellants seek a writ of mandamus against the board of supervisors of Harrison county, Iowa, "expressly directing and commanding said Board of Supervisors to direct...