Jones v. Winthrop Sav. Bank
| Decision Date | 03 July 1876 |
| Citation | 66 Me. 242 |
| Parties | LEVI JONES, et als., complainants in equity, v. WINTHROP SAVINGS BANK. 1876. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
BILL IN EQUITY, by the complainants, trustees of the Winthrop savings bank, praying for a sequestration and equitable distribution of their assets.
September 27, 1875, the decree of sequestration was passed, and commissioners were appointed to receive and decide upon all claims against the institution, and make report to the court of the claims allowed and disallowed.
A receiver was appointed with direction to take possession of all the assets, and possession was taken by him, October 2 1875.
The average amount of gross deposits " for the last preceding six months ending October 30, 1875," was $112,558.91, as appeared by the semi-annual return of the treasurer.
The state of Maine duly presented to the commissioners, its claim for a tax of one-half of one per cent. on the average deposits for that period, to wit: the sum of $562.79.
The commissioners made report to this court, from which it appears that the claim of the state for the tax was disallowed.
The state seasonably filed written objection to the acceptance of the report, by reason of the disallowance, and asked that the claim might be allowed.
The presiding justice affirmed the action of the commissioners in disallowing the claim; and the state alleged exceptions.
L. A Emery, attorney general, for the state, claimed that the corporation still existed and had these deposits, though a receiver might be administering the assets; that the tax was on the deposits, and attached to them at once, as they were paid in; that the right of the state arose then, and not on the last Saturday, etc., and that the receiver should continue to pay this tax as long as the deposit remained exempt from local tax, and he held the assets of the bank.
E. O. Bean, for the bank.
By the statute of 1872, c. 74, as finally amended in 1875, c. 47, § 1, savings banks are required to pay to the state treasurer one-half of one per centum on the average amount of its gross deposits as held on the first Saturday of each and every month, for the last six months prior to a return of such deposits, which is to be made by the bank " on the last Saturday preceding the first Monday of May and November of each year." In this case, the state claims the amount of a tax alleged to be due from the Winthrop savings bank for the six months prior to the last Saturday preceding the first Monday of November, 1875.
On the 27th day of September, 1875, upon complaint of the trustees of that bank, a decree of sequestration was passed and a receiver appointed, who subsequently, on the second day of October, 1875, took possession of all the assets of the bank.
The question now presented is, whether the tax claimed is a valid one.
If, under the statute, the tax first becomes a valid subsisting claim against the bank when the return is made, it is clear that in this case it cannot be recovered. At that time the decree of sequestration had been passed, and, as was required by the statute, the receiver had taken possession of all the assets for the purposes therein specified. R. S., c. 47, §§ 99, 101.
No debt can accrue against the bank after the decree of sequestration. This is the end of its existence. No debts can be paid except such as the commissioners allow; and they can allow none except such as are outstanding at the date of the decree. After the payment of such debts, the balance is to be ratably distributed among the depositors. R. S., c. 47, § 101.
The effect of this decree upon the charter must be at least as decisive as a perpetual injunction upon the charter of a bank of discount, in which case it has been held as fatal to its further existence. Wiswell et als. v. Starr et als., 48 Me. 401. Dane et al. v. Young et als., 61 Me. 160.
Upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Detroit Props. Corp.
...the receiver was not operating the business, and the life or right of the corporation to do business had ceased. Jones v. Winthrop Savings Bank, 66 Me. 242;Johnson v. Johnson Brothers, 108 Me. 272, 296, 80 A. 741, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1303;State v. Bradford Savings Bank & Trust Co., 71 Vt. 234,......
-
Wyatt v. State Bd. of Equalization
...property, but rather a privilege tax, or an excise upon the franchise which the bank enjoys. This is the almost universal rule. Jones v. Bank, 66 Me. 242; State v. Bank, 71 Vt. 234, 44 Atl. 349; Commonwealth v. Bank, 5 Allen (Mass.) 428; s. c, sub nom. Provident Institution v. Massachusetts......
-
Cooper v. Casco Mercantile Trust Co.
...was to keep the bank alive and not to dissolve it. So here. On the other hand, the statute upon which the decision in Jones v. Winthrop Savings Bank, 66 Me. 242, was based was of an entirely different character. Its purpose was for dissolution and distribution of assets. The statement of th......
-
State Bank Comm'r v. Fid. Trust Co.
...the designated dates, and measured, if the returns are not made, by the valuation placed upon it by the Bureau of Taxation. Jones v. Winthrop Savings Bank, 66 Me. 242; Provident Institution for Savings v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611, 18 L.Ed. 907; Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594, 1......