Lindsay v. First Nat Bank of Shreveport

Decision Date04 March 1895
Docket NumberNo. 132,132
Citation15 S.Ct. 472,39 L.Ed. 505,156 U.S. 485
PartiesLINDSAY, Assessor of Parish of Caddo, et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF SHREVEPORT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was an action brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Louisiana by the First National Bank of Shreveport, a corporation created under the laws of the United States, against Robert H. Lindsay, assessor of the parish of Caddo, the police jury of said parish of Caddo, and the city of Shreveport, Louisiana. The declaration or petition sets forth that the capital stock of said bank consists of 2,000 shares, of $100 each, held and owned by about 20 persons, who are named in the petition; that Robert H. Lindsay, as assessor of the parish of Caddo, had assessed the shares of stock of said corporation against the said stockholders on the tax roll of the current year 1889 at the rate of $80 per share, aggregating the sum of $160,000; that such assessment was unlawful, unjust, and excessive, and that the bank and said stockholders, in due time and form, applied to the police jury of said parish, sitting as a board of reviewers, under the provisions of the revenue laws of said state, for the cancellation of said assessment, or to have the same corrected, but that said board of reviewers failed and refused to cancel or correct such assessment, which accordingly appeared on the tax roll for the year 1889 of said parish; that under the existing laws, on all property subject to taxation, the state levies a tax of 6 mills on the dollar of valuation; that the parish of Caddo, through its police jury, levies a tax of 8 mills on the dollar of valuation, and the city of Shreveport levies a tax of 23 3/4 mills on the dollar of valuation,—making a total tax of 37 3/4 mills on the dollar of valuation; that, under said illegal assessment, the state of Louisiana, the parish of Caddo, and the city of Shreveport are about to collect such taxes, aggregating $6,040, from the petitioner, 'unless prevented by the decree of this honorable court'; that the state of Louisiana has no power or right to tax in any manner the capital stock of any national bank, except so far as such power and right have been granted by the congress of the United States; that, under existing laws of the United States, the state may determine and direct the manner of taxing all shares of national banks having their domicile in the state, provided such taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon the moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the state, and that the true intent and meaning of such proviso is that the tax assessed on the shares of national banks shall be equal and uniform with the tax assessed and levied on other property in said state and on the individual owners thereof; that by the statute of the United States authorizing the state to tax, under certain limitations, shares of national banks, by the 'law of the land,' and by the constitution and laws of the state of Louisiana, it is expressly provided that taxation shall be equal and uniform; that the assessment so as aforesaid made violates the principle of equality and uniformity, in this: that the said Lindsay, assessor, has assessed said shares of stock at a much higher value proportionately than that at which he assessed the property of other citizens subject to taxation, the assessment of said shares being twice as high as that placed on other property; that the said assessor, Lindsay, has willfully failed and neglected to assess and place on said tax roll moneys in the possession of citizens of the state, and moneys by such citizens loaned out, bonds, judgments, notes, accounts, and other verdicts held by and due to citizens of the state, and property of other kinds owned by citizens of the state and by persons not citizens of the state, all of which was and is subject to taxation, and should have been assessed and placed on said tax roll, and that the value of said property so omitted from said tax roll exceeded, at the time when said assessment should have been made, the sum of $1,000,000; that the acts of the said assessor, Lindsay, relating to said tax roll, destroy the uniformity of the rule fixed by the constitution and laws of the state, and are subversive of the act of congress allowing shares in national banks to be taxed, which act intended to protect the owners of such shares from greater burdens than are imposed on other moneyed capital in the state where such banks are located; that, in arriving at the assessment of said shares in said bank, the said assessor, Lindsay, and the said police jury, sitting as a board of reviewers, took the capital stock of said bank, viz. $200,000, and added thereto $40,000, the earnings of the bank, which did not and does not in any manner constitute any portion of the capital stock of said bank, and which the bank held and now holds in United States bonds, by law exempted from taxation; that section 29 of Act No. 85 of the general assembly of Louisiana (session of 1888), the existing revenue act of said state, provides that the actual shares of stock of every national bank shall be assessed to the stockholders, and the taxes so assessed shall be paid by the bank, and that all property owned by the bank taxable under section 1 of said act shall be assessed directly to the bank, and the pro rata share of such direct taxes and of all exempt property proportioned to each share of capital stock shall be deducted from the amount of taxes assessed to that share under said section 29; that, the said earnings having been invested in property exempted from taxation, the said assessor and the said police jury should have deducted the same proportionately from the amount of taxes assessed to each share in said bank; that, by the provisions of the twenty-ninth section of said Act No. 85 of the general assembly of Louisiana (session of 1888), the said bank is required to pay the taxes assessed to its stockholders; that the corporation known as the First National Bank of Shreveport is a juridical person, separate and distinct from each and every person holding stock therein, and is not and cannot be bound to discharge the obligations of such other persons, and that said provisions of said section of said act violate the constitution of the United States, etc.; that this is a case arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and presents federal questions, and that this honorable court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the same; that, therefore, the petitioner prays that the said Lindsay, assessor, said police jury of Caddo parish, and the city of Shreveport be cited to answer hereto; that, after all legal notices and delays, there be judgment in favor of petitioner declaring said assessment null and void, and prohibiting the collection of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 16, 1904
    ... ... CHESHIRE PROVIDENT INST. SAME v. KEENE FIVE CENT SAV. BANK. Nos. 1858-1861. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. July 16, ... 88, c. 46. A ... corporation is dissolved-- first, by the expiration of the ... time limited in its charter; second, by a ... 499, 512, 13 Sup.Ct. 148, 36 L.Ed ... 1059; Lindsay v. First Nat. Bank, 156 U.S. 485, 493, ... 15 Sup.Ct. 472, 39 L.Ed. 505; ... ...
  • Roberts v. American Nat. Bank of Pensacola
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1929
    ... ... Fairweather, 263 U.S. 103, 106, 44 S.Ct. 23, 68 L.Ed ... 191; First National Bank of Guthrie Center v ... Anderson, 269 U.S. 341, 347, 46 S.Ct. 135, 70 L.Ed. 295 ... competing moneyed capital not being assessed at all. See ... First Nat. Bank v. Lindsay, Assessor (C. C.) 45 F ... 619. Injunction is the remedy. Lindsay v. First Nat ... Bank, 156 ... ...
  • Schurmeier v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 26, 1909
    ... ... 22. It was held upon the authority of ... Security Trust Co. v. Bank, 187 U.S. 211, 23 Sup.Ct ... 52, 47 L.Ed. 147, that, as no action was egun within the ... period first fixed by the probate court, the remedy ... thereafter was in equity, not ... 499, 512, 13 Sup.Ct. 148, 36 L.Ed ... 1059; Lindsay v. Bank, 156 U.S. 485, 493, 15 Sup.Ct ... 472, 39 L.Ed. 505; ... ...
  • Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • May 26, 1903
    ... ... therein, without having first complied with the above ... requirements, is liable, among other things, ... 499, 512, 13 Sup.Ct. 148, 36 L.Ed ... 1059; Lindsay v. Shreveport Bank, 156 U.S. 485, 493, ... 15 Sup.Ct. 472, 39 L.Ed. 505 ... ...
  • 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