Hibernia Savings Loan Society v. City and County of San Francisco

Decision Date29 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 154,154
Citation4 Ann.Cas. 934,26 S.Ct. 265,200 U.S. 310,50 L.Ed. 495
PartiesHIBERNIA SAVINGS & LOAN SOCIETY, Plff. in Err. , v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was an action by the plaintiff in error, begun in the state superior court, to recover certain taxes paid under protest upon two checks or orders for $120,000 and $1,875, respectively, signed by the Treasurer of the United States, and addressed to the Treasurer or an Assistant Treasurer of the United States, for interest accrued upon certain registered bonds of the United States, owned by the plaintiff. These checks were issued in compliance with Rev. Stat. § 3698, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2479, which requires that 'the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause to be paid, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, any interest falling due or accruing on any portion of the public debt authorized by law.' These checks which were payable at the United States Treasury at San Francisco at any time within four months from their dete, were not presented immediately for payment, but were withheld by the plaintiff until the first Monday in March, 1899, the day when the status of property, for the purpose of taxation, is determined. Plaintiff did not list these two checks for assessment; but the assessor, in making up his roll for the ensuing year, included them, and, after a fruitless effort to be relieved from the assessment, plaintiff paid the amount of the tax, and brought this suit to recover it back. There were claims for other taxes included in the action, upon which plaintiff was successful; but, in respect to the tax upon the two orders above mentioned, judgment went for the defendant, which was affirmed by the supreme court. 139 Cal. 205, 96 Am. St. Rep. 100, 72 Pac. 920.

Mr. T. C. Van Ness and Messrs. Tobin & Tobin for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Percy V. Long and William I. Brobeck for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

This case involves the question whether the two checks or orders upon which the tax was imposed are exempt from state taxation under Rev. Stat. § 3701, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2480, declaring that 'all stocks, bonds, Treasury notes, and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under state or municipal or local authority.' The basis of this exemption is the fact that a tax upon the obligations of the United States is virtually a tax upon the credit of the government, and upon its power to raise money for the purpose of carrying on its civil and military operations. The efficiency of the government service cannot be impaired by a taxation of the agencies which it employs for such service, and, as one of the most valuable and best known of these agencise is the borrowing of money, a tax which diminishes in the slightest degree the value of the obligations issued by the government for that purpose impairs pro tanto their market value.

The inability of the states to tax the official agencies of the Federal government, whether in the form of banks chartered under its authority, or of obligations issued by it as a means of providing a revenue, or for the payment of its debts, was applied in M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579, to a stamp tax upon notes of the United States bank; in Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481, and in New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Tax Comrs. 2 Black, 620, 17 L. ed. 451, to stock issued for loans made to the government of the United States; and in the Bank Tax Case (New York ex rel. Bank of Commonwealth v. Tax & A. Comrs.) 2 Wall. 200, 17 L. ed. 793, to a tax laid on banks on a valuation equal to the amount of their capital stock, when their property consisted of stocks of the Federal government; in The Banks v. New York (New York ex rel. Bank of N. Y. Nat. Bkg. Asso. v. Connelly) 7 Wall. 16, 19 L. ed. 57, to certificates of indebtedness of the United States, issued to the creditors of the government for supplies furnished in carrying on the Civil War; in Bank of New York v. New York County (New York ex rel. Bank of New York v. New York County) 7 Wall. 26, 19 L. ed. 60, to notes of the United States intended to circulate as money; and in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee (Van Brocklin v. Anderson) 117 U. S. 151, 29 L. ed. 845, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670, to land purchased by the United States, for the amount of a direct tax laid thereon.

The principle, however, upon which this exemption is claimed, does not apply to obligations such as checks and warrants, intended for immediate use, and designed merely to stand in the place of money until presented at the Treasury, and the money actually drawn thereon. In such case the tax is virtually a tax upon the money which may be drawn...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • James v. Dravo Contracting Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1937
    ...S.Ct. 829, 44 L.Ed. 998; Greiner v. Lewellyn, 258 U.S. 384, 42 S.Ct. 324, 66 L.Ed. 676. 24 Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco, 200 U.S. 310, 26 S.Ct. 265, 50 L.Ed. 495, 4 Ann.Cas. 934. 25 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 465, 7 L.Ed. 481. 26 Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir, 271 U.......
  • Schuylkill Trust Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1935
    ...Tax Commission, 289 U.S. 60, 65, 66, 53 S.Ct. 511, 77 L.Ed. 1030, 87 A.L.R. 840; cf. Hibernia Savings Society v. San Francisco, 200 U.S. 310, 314, 315, 26 S.Ct. 265, 50 L.Ed. 495, 4 Ann.Cas. 934. The conclusion is even clearer where the investment may not properly be classified as moneyed c......
  • Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Department of Revenue, s. 83-626
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 26, 1984
    ...power to raise money for the purpose of carrying on its civil and military operations." (Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco (1906), 200 U.S. 310, 313, 50 L.Ed. 495, 496, 26 S.Ct. 265, 266.) Since the question whether the subject obligations are constitutionally immune from tax......
  • Montgomery Ward Life Ins. Co. v. State, Dept. of Local Government Affairs, 79-1612
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 26, 1980
    ...to raise money for the purpose of carrying on its civil and military operations." Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. San Francisco (1906), 200 U.S. 310 at 313, 26 S.Ct. 265 at 266, 50 L.Ed. 495 at The question raised by this appeal is whether Ginnie Mae certificates issued under 12 U.S.C. §......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • IL Register Vol. 44 Issue 7. Issue 7 - February 14, 2020 - Pages 2,618-3,038
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • Invalid date
    ...Savings v. Bowers (1955) 349 U.S. 143, 144, 99 L. Ed. 2d 950, 955, 75 S. Ct. 607, 608. Hibernia v. City and County of San Francisco (1906) 200 U.S. 310, 313, 50 L. Ed. 495, 496, 26 S. Ct. 265, 266. A) Tax-exempt credit instruments possess the following characteristics: i) they are written d......
  • IL Register Vol 37 Issue 35. Issue 35 - August 30, 2013 - Pages 13,821-13,962
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • Invalid date
    ...Savings v. Bowers (1955) 349 U.S. 143, 144, 99 L. Ed. 2d 950, 955, 75 S. Ct. 607, 608. Hibernia v. City and County of San Francisco (1906) 200 U.S. 310, 313, 50 L. Ed. 495, 496, 26 S. Ct. 265, A) Tax-exempt credit instruments possess the following characteristics: i) they are written docume......

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