First National Bank of Albuquerque v. George Albright
| Decision Date | 24 February 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 123,123 |
| Citation | 52 L.Ed. 614,208 U.S. 548,28 S.Ct. 349 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, Appt., v. GEORGE F. ALBRIGHT, Frank A. Hubbell, and F. W. Clancy. Agrued and |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Alonzo B. McMillen for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 548-550 intentionally omitted] Mr. Frank W. Clancy for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 550-551 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a complaint or bill against the assessor, the treasurer and ex officio collector, and the district attorney of the county of Bernalillo, New Mexico, to enjoin the reassessment of a tax on stock and real estate for the year 1903 upon the plaintiff bank, which the plaintiff is informed and believes the defendants will attempt. The bill alleges that the plaintiff gave the assessor a list in which capital stock, surplus, and real estate were lumped in a single item with a single valuation of $90,000. Thereupon the assessor made a different valuation, lumping the capital stock and valuing it at 60 per cent of its par value, and giving separate figures for the surplus and the several parcels of real estate, the total being $150,542. This was affirmed by the territorial board of equalization on appeal. Afterwards the plaintiff the amount admitted by it to be due, and was sued for the residue; but the suit was dismissed, the district attorney giving out that a new assessment would be made. It is alleged that the assessor, in 1903, announced as his method of valuation that all property except bank property and bank shares would be assessed at one third of its real value, but that he would assess banks at 60 per cent of the capital stock and surplus in addition to their real estate; that he did as he announced, and also assessed the real estate without deducting the value 'from the valuation of other property assessed against said banks.' Beside the prayer for an in- junction there is another that the treasurer and ex officio collector be ordered to cancel the above-mentioned assessment upon his books. There was a demurrer, which was overruled below, but sustained by the supreme court of the territory, with directions to dismiss the complaint.
The complaint admits that the plaintiff's return was not in accordance with the law, and the supreme court of the territory says that both that and the assessment were bad, and that a reassessment is authorized by local law. We see no reason to reverse its decision upon that point. If a reassessment is made, that now on the treasurer's books will be disposed of and will be no cloud upon the plaintiff's title, so that the whole question is whether a reassessment shall be made. The plaintiff's objection is not the technical one that no reassessment is authorized by statute, but the substantial apprehension that the shares will be taxed 'at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens,' contrary to the words of Rev. Stat. § 5219, U. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redlands Foothill Groves v. Jacobs
...75 L.Ed. 1275; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 1935, 74 F.2d 200. Mere fears are not enough. First National Bank v. Albright, 1908, 208 U.S. 548, 28 S.Ct. 349, 52 L.Ed. 614; Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, supra; Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery, 1937, 302 U.S. 300, 309, 58 S.Ct. 199, 82 L.......
-
San Francisco S. News Co. v. City of So. San Francisco
...regard, the appellant quotes a single sentence from the opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in the case of First National Bank v. Albright, 208 U. S. 548, 552, 28 S. Ct. 349, 350, 52 L. Ed. 614: "Accidental inequality is one thing, intentional and systematic discrimination But in the instant case......
-
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio v. Same
...to its determination. If these were private suits relief would necessarily be denied. Compare First National Bank of Albuquerque v. Albright, 208 U. S. 548, 28 Sup. Ct. 349, 52 L. Ed. 614; South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4, 14, 23 L. Ed. 782. As the suit is that of one state against ano......
-
Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association
... ... Santa Fe, 52 Colo. 609; 125 P. 528; ... Bank v. Patterson (Colo.) 176 P. 501; U. P. R ... first legal meeting of the county board of equalization ... whole state as well. (See First National Bank v ... Holmes, 246 Ill. 362; 92 N.E. 893; ... Albright, 208 U.S. 548, 28 S.Ct. 349, 52 L.Ed. 614: ... ...