Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat. B'K

Citation141 Va. 244
Case DateJanuary 15, 1925
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

Page 244

141 Va. 244
TOWN OF LEESBURG, VIRGINIA,
v.
LOUDOUN NATIONAL BANK AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
v.
LOUDOUN NATIONAL BANK.
Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.
January 15, 1925.

1. TAXATION — Correction of Assessment — Expiration of Statutory Period — Pleading Limitation. — Code of 1919, section 2389, requires that application for redress of an erroneous assessment must be made to the court within two years from the first day of September of the year in which the assessment was made. Therefore where the application is not made within the statutory period the court is clearly without jurisdiction to correct the assessment. The limitation need not be specially pleaded. The remedy, because it is based solely upon the statute, is also limited thereby.

2. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — Limitations of Time Intergral Part of Statute — Pleading Limitation. — Where the very right itself is accorded by a statute and the statute is relied on, and the proceeding can be maintained only in accordance therewith, the limitation of time thereby prescribed is so incorporated in the remedy given as to make it an integral part of it, and hence makes it a condition precedent to the maintenance of the proceeding. It is a special limitation prescribed by the same statute which creates the right. The distinction between statutes of limitation which bar rights which have once accrued and limitations of time which are an integral part of the statute creating the right is everywhere recognized.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Jurisdiction — Point Raised for the First Time on Appeal. — Where it was alleged in a proceeding to correct an erroneous assessment of taxes that the lower court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief because the application for relief had not been made within the statutory period, the question being jurisdictional, may be raised for the first time on appeal.

4. TAXATION — Correction of Erroneous Assessment — Limitation of Actions — Notice of Intention to Apply for Correction. — Where an application to correct an erroneous assessment of taxes was not made within the two years allowed by section 2389 of the Code of 1919, the fact that notice of the purpose to apply for such correction was given within two years is immaterial. The application must be actually made, and made directly to the court within two years from September 1st of the year in which the assessment was made. The mere fact that the courts are not continuously in session does not affect the question.

5. TAXATION — Correction of Erroneous Assessment — Parties Plaintiff — Bank or Stockholders. — An application for the correction of an erroneous assessment of bank stock was made by the bank as applicant, or petitioner, and not by the several stockholders. As under the sections of the revenue law providing for the taxation of bank stock it clearly appears that the tax is specifically a tax assessed against the individual stockholders severally and not against the bank, and that the bank is not responsible for the tax unless it has funds of the stockholder in its possession out of which such tax can be paid, therefore the bank cannot itself proceed under the statute providing for relief against alleged erroneous assessments because it has no legal interest in the fund; but the remedy of each stockholder is clear, complete, and effective under these statutes.

6. TAXATION — Stock in National Bank — Proof that Stock was Taxed at Greater Rate than Other Competitive Capital. — In a proceeding to correct an erroneous assessment of stock in a National Bank, a failure to show clearly that the rate of taxation imposed violated U.S. Rev. Stat. section 5219 (Comp. St. U.S. section 9784), in that the stock was taxed at a greater rate than was assessed upon other competitive moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens, is fatal to the application for correction.

7. TAXATION — Correction of Erroneous Assessment — Appeal and Error — County or Board of Supervisors as Appellant. — In a proceeding for the correction of an erroneous assessment of taxes, where judgment is in favor of the applicant, the county in its own name may appeal, or the appeal may be taken in the name of the Board of Supervisors of the county.

8. TAXATION — Correction of Erroneous Assessment — Party Defendant. — The statutory proceeding for the correction of erroneous assessments does not in terms provide for naming any party defendant. Notice must be given to the attorney for the Commonwealth and the commissioner of the revenue must be examined as a witness, but neither of these are parties in interest. The true parties to the proceeding under this section are either the county or the municipality for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • In re Chen, No. 03-10711-RGM.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • September 7, 2006
    ...v. Powhatan Clay Mfg. Co., [102 Va. 274, 46 S.E. 294 (1904)]; Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 460, 62 S.E. 272; Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat'l Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 135 S.E. 21. The declaration or the bill in such cases is demurrable......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 13, 1930
    ...of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.' " See, also, Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S. E. 196, and Commonwealth v. Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S. E. 281. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grie......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 13, 1930
    ...virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.'" See also Town of Leesburg Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196, and Commonwealth Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S.E. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his ......
  • Barksdale v. H.O. Engen, Inc., No. 761491
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • October 7, 1977
    ...to maintenance of the claim. American Mutual, Etc. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 403, 135 S.E. 21, 24 (1926); Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat. B'k, 141 Va. 244, 247, 126 S.E. 196, 197 (1925); Commonwealth v. Deford, 137 Va. 542, 551, 120 S.E. 281, 284 (1923). See Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • In re Chen, No. 03-10711-RGM.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • September 7, 2006
    ...v. Powhatan Clay Mfg. Co., [102 Va. 274, 46 S.E. 294 (1904)]; Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 460, 62 S.E. 272; Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat'l Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 135 S.E. 21. The declaration or the bill in such cases is demurrable......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 13, 1930
    ...of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.' " See, also, Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S. E. 196, and Commonwealth v. Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S. E. 281. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grie......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • November 13, 1930
    ...virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.'" See also Town of Leesburg Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196, and Commonwealth Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S.E. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his ......
  • Barksdale v. H.O. Engen, Inc., No. 761491
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • October 7, 1977
    ...to maintenance of the claim. American Mutual, Etc. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 403, 135 S.E. 21, 24 (1926); Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat. B'k, 141 Va. 244, 247, 126 S.E. 196, 197 (1925); Commonwealth v. Deford, 137 Va. 542, 551, 120 S.E. 281, 284 (1923). See Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny S......
  • 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