In re Bank of Manhattan Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtLEHMAN
Citation293 N.Y. 515,58 N.E.2d 713
Decision Date30 November 1944
PartiesIn re BANK OF MANHATTAN CO.

293 N.Y. 515
58 N.E.2d 713

In re BANK OF MANHATTAN CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 30, 1944.


Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Proceeding in the matter of the Bank of Manhattan Company against Michael J. Murphy, as Acting Industrial Commissioner, for a refund of unemployment insurance contributions paid for the year 1939. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third judicial department, 267 App.Div. 456, 47 N.Y.S.2d 524, reversed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board made under Labor Law, s 500 et seq., affirming a decision of the referee which sustained a determination of the Industrial Commissioner denying petitioner's claims for a refund, and remitted the matter to the Appeal Board to fix the unemployment insurance tax of petitioner, omitting therefrom the tax for the period from August 10, 1939 to December 31, 1939, inclusive. The order of reversal also stated in substance that the court had determined that petitioner was entitled to a refund of its overpayment of tax. By permission of the Appellate Division, petitioner appeals from so much of the order of the Appellate Division, as remitted the matter to the Appeal Board to fix the tax for the period from January 1, 1939, to August 9, 1939, inclusive, and the Industrial Commissioner cross-appeals from that part of the order which determined that petitioner was entitled to a refund of contributions paid for the period from August 10, 1939, to December 31, 1939, inclusive.

Order affirmed. Certified questions not answered.

[58 N.E.2d 713]

George E. Cleary, of New York City, for petitioner, appellant and respondent.

[58 N.E.2d 714]

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. (Orrin G. Judd, of New York City, and Francis R. Curran, of Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for respondent and appellant Acting Industrial Commissioner.


LEHMAN, Chief Judge.

Bank of the Manhattan Company was incorporated by a special act of the Legislature of the State of New York on April 2, 1799. It conducts a general banking business as authorized by the laws of the State. The parties have stipulated that throughout the year 1939 it ‘exercised substantially similar functions and engaged in substantially similar business as national banks in State of New York incorporated under the laws of the United States.’ Article 18 of the Labor Law entitled ‘Unemployment Insurance Fund’ was added to the Labor Law by chapter 468 of the Laws of 1935. It provided that ‘on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred thirty-six, contributions shall be payable by each employer then subject to this article’ (s 515, see present s 560). Bank of the Manhattan Company was an ‘employer then subject to this article’ and it paid the contributions for which it was liable under the provisions of the Act. National banks doing similar business in this State could be taxed by the State or compelled to pay ‘contributions', prescribed by State law though not denominated a tax, only as permitted by Congress and in conformity with the conditions annexed to such permission. First Nat. Bank of Guthrie Center, Iowa v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 341, 46 S.Ct. 135, 70 L.Ed. 295. When the Unemployment Insurance Fund statute was enacted, the tax or enforced contribution imposed by the statute on ‘employers' did not fall within the limited scope of the permission to tax national banks previously given by Congress to the State. National banks were in consequence exempt from the burden to which not only State banks but all other employers as defined in the Unemployment Insurance Fund statute were subject.

The Constitution of the State as revised, with amendments adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the People on November 8, 1938, has been ‘in force from and including the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred thirty-nine.’ Art. XX, s 1. Among the amendments adopted by the Convention and approved by the People is the provision that: ‘Where the state has power to tax corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States there shall be no discrimination in the rates and method of taxation between such corporations and other corporations exercising substantially similar functions and engaged in substantially similar business within the state.’ Art. XVI, s 4. On August 10, 1939, section 1606 of the Internal Revenue Code was amended by the Congress of the United States, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, s 1606. The pertinent provisions of the amending Act are ‘(a) No person required under a State law to make payments to an unemployment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 2 Junio 1949
    ...banks had not been subjected to the same exaction. Matter of Bank of Manhattan Co., v. Murphy, 267 App.Div. 456, 47 N.Y.S.2d 524, affirmed 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713. After the last-cited decision of the Appellate Division, the claimant, on June 21, 1944, filed a claim for refund with the ......
  • Parisi, Application of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 24 Octubre 1957
    ...22, 106 A.L.R. 1519, affirmed 299 U.S. Page 250 515, 57 S.Ct. 122, 81 L.Ed. 380; Matter [8 Misc.2d 261] of Bank of Manhattan Company, 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713; Guaranty Trust Company v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d Whether or not unpaid contributions of this character are '......
  • Bankers Trust Company v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 13 Febrero 1974
    ...337 N.Y.S.2d 493 should be affirmed, with costs. Page 736 The court affirms on the authority of Matter of Bank of Manhattan Co. (Murphy), 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713. While petitioner Banks make a cogent argument that section 4 of article XVI of the State Constitution should be reviewed in ......
  • Bankers Trust Co., Matter Of, v. Finance Administration of City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Noviembre 1972
    ...of the respondent, dated May 20, 1971, unanimously confirmed on the authority of Matter of Bank Page 494 of Manhattan Co. (Murphy), 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713 (1944), affirming 267 App.Div. 456, 47 N.Y.S.2d 524 (3d Dep't). Respondents shall recover of petitioner $60 costs and disbursements......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 2 Junio 1949
    ...banks had not been subjected to the same exaction. Matter of Bank of Manhattan Co., v. Murphy, 267 App.Div. 456, 47 N.Y.S.2d 524, affirmed 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713. After the last-cited decision of the Appellate Division, the claimant, on June 21, 1944, filed a claim for refund with the ......
  • Parisi, Application of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 24 Octubre 1957
    ...22, 106 A.L.R. 1519, affirmed 299 U.S. Page 250 515, 57 S.Ct. 122, 81 L.Ed. 380; Matter [8 Misc.2d 261] of Bank of Manhattan Company, 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713; Guaranty Trust Company v. State of New York, 299 N.Y. 295, 86 N.E.2d Whether or not unpaid contributions of this character are '......
  • Bankers Trust Company v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 13 Febrero 1974
    ...337 N.Y.S.2d 493 should be affirmed, with costs. Page 736 The court affirms on the authority of Matter of Bank of Manhattan Co. (Murphy), 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713. While petitioner Banks make a cogent argument that section 4 of article XVI of the State Constitution should be reviewed in ......
  • Bankers Trust Co., Matter Of, v. Finance Administration of City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 16 Noviembre 1972
    ...of the respondent, dated May 20, 1971, unanimously confirmed on the authority of Matter of Bank Page 494 of Manhattan Co. (Murphy), 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713 (1944), affirming 267 App.Div. 456, 47 N.Y.S.2d 524 (3d Dep't). Respondents shall recover of petitioner $60 costs and disbursements......
  • 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