Griffin v. Heard

• Citation: 14 S.W. 892
• Parties: GRIFFIN, Tax Collector, v. HEARD <I>et al.</I>
• Decision Date: 28 November 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

14 S.W. 892

GRIFFIN, Tax Collector, v. HEARD et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 28, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Somervell county; C. K. BELL, Judge.

Crane & Ramsey and English & Ewing, for appellant. Poindexter & Padelford, for appellees.

GAINES, J.

The appellees, a partnership engaged in the business of banking at Cleburne, in Johnson county, brought this suit against appellant, as the tax collector of that county, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes. The action was instituted in Johnson county, but the venue was changed to Somervell. The cause was submitted to a jury upon special issues, and the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, upon the verdict. The plaintiffs rendered statements of assets of their banking business for taxation for the years 1887 and 1888, in the form required by the act of April 14, 1883, but neither statement showed either money or credits subject to taxation. The assessor, being dissatisfied therewith, assessed them upon the sum of $46,976, consisting of money and credits for each year. The taxes so assessed, they sought to enjoin by this action. It was agreed between the counsel for the respective parties, that the only questions to be determined were: (1) Did plaintiffs, composing the firm of Heard, Allen & Floore, and operating a private bank in Cleburne, Texas, known as the `Bank of Cleburne,' own, hold, and have the $46,976 assessed against said firm on the 1st day of January, 1887, and on the 1st day of January, 1888, as money and credit subject to assessment and taxation in Johnson county, Texas, for said years under the law passed by the legislature of this state, April 14, 1883, for the assessment of private banks, etc? (2) If plaintiffs did not have said amount of money and credits of said dates, then how much did they so have on said dates subject to assessment and taxation as aforesaid? (3) If plaintiffs cannot be held liable for such tax as may be due upon such moneys and credits under the law under which said firm was assessed, then can they be held under any other law for said taxes? Neither party shall be required to introduce any testimony except such evidence as may tend to prove or disprove the questions of fact involved in the above-stated questions. The testimony of the members of the banking firm was introduced upon the trial, and was substantially as follows: That the firm had on January 1, 1887, money on hand, in transit, and in the hands of other bankers, except United States treasury notes, $8,673; that they had credits, $89,815; that the amount of money on deposit with them was $112,030. They also testified that on the date above named they had in their bank vaults $36,322.71, and $40,492 in other banks, making together $76,814.71, but that $68,141 of this amount was in treasury notes, which had been accumulated by them during a course of business extending over four years. They also testified, in effect, that they had, January 1, 1888, cash in vaults, $42,431, and $7,322 in other banks, making the sum of $49,753. and that of this sum $42,003 were treasury notes; that at this date their credits amounted to $55,971, and that the amount of money on deposit with them was $69,671.

There are two prominent questions in the cause, and they involve the construction of the provisions of the act of the legislature above mentioned. That statute was enacted as amending article 4684 of the Revised Statutes, and the fourth subdivision reads as follows: "(4) All other banks, bankers, brokers, dealers in exchange, or stock-jobbers, shall render their list in the following manner: (1) The amount of money on hand, or in transit, or in the hands of other banks, bankers, brokers or others subject to draft, whether the same be in or out of the state, (except United States treasury notes.) (2) The amount of bills receivable, discounted or purchased, and other credits due or to become due, including accounts receivable, interest accrued but not due, and interest due and unpaid. (3) From the aggregate amount of the items named in the first and second of the last two subdivisions shall be deducted the amount of money on deposit. (4) The amount of bonds and stocks of every kind, (except United States bonds.) and all shares of capital stocks or joint stocks of other companies or corporations held as an investment, or in any way representing assets. (5) All other property belonging or appertaining to said bank or business, including both personal property or real estate, shall be listed as other personal property or real estate." We understand the main contention of appellant to be that, since the appellees are entitled to deduct from the money on hand, all non-taxable United States treasury notes, all treasury notes placed in bank by their depositors should be subtracted from the amount of their deposits before subtracting the latter from the sum of their cash and credits; and that having the burden of proof, and having failed to show the amount of treasury notes that had contributed to swell the deposits, nothing should be deducted for money on deposit. In this construction of the statute we do not concur. We are of opinion that by "the amount of money on deposit," as those words are used in the third subdivision of the act we have quoted, is meant the amount due depositors; that is to say, the debts of the bank due depositors, and not money belonging to others, and held by the bank as bailees. Money on special deposit is not the property of the bank, but belongs to the depositors, and is subject to be assessed to them for taxation. On the other hand, an ordinary deposit in bank creates the relation of debtor and creditor, and the effect of the transaction is to transfer the property in the funds deposited to the bank, and to render it liable to taxation as the money of the banker. Now it must be borne in mind that articles 4669, 4670, 4671, 4672, and 4673 of the Revised Statutes, define the property in the state which is made subject to taxation. Article 4669 declares that "all property, real, personal, and mixed, except such as may be hereinafter expressly exempted, is subject to taxation, and the same shall be rendered and listed as herein prescribed." Article 4673 declares what property shall be exempt. Article 4671, among other things, provides that "personal property shall,...