Northwestern Loan & Banking Co. v. Muggli

• Decision Date: 12 October 1895
• Citation: 7 S.D. 527,64 N.W. 1122
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
• Parties: NORTHWESTERN LOAN & BANKING CO., Plaintiff and appellant, v. MUGGLI, Treasurer, Defendant and respondent.

7 S.D. 527

64 N.W. 1122

NORTHWESTERN LOAN & BANKING CO., Plaintiff and appellant, v. MUGGLI,

Treasurer,

Defendant and respondent.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County, SD

Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge

Affirmed

J. H. Williamson, Bailey & Voorhees

Attorneys for appellant.

Oscar O. Murray

Attorney for respondent.

Opinion filed Oct. 12, 1895

KELLAM, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Lake county sustaining a demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiff, now appellant. The essential facts charged in the complaint are that appellant is an incorporated loaning and banking company under the laws of the state, doing business in the city of Madison; that in assessing its stock for taxation the city assessor refused to deduct from aggregate amount of its capital stock, it having no surplus fund, the amount of its investments in real estate as directed by section 24, c. 14, Laws 1891, of which the assessor was duly advised by the appellant, but assessed such shares of stock against the individual owners thereof at its par value, and without regard to the amount so invested in real estate. The city board of equalization refused to correct such assessment, and taxes were levied and extended upon the stock as assessed. The bank paid the taxes, which, as it claims, were legally assessed upon said stock, and brought this action to restrain the collection of the remainder. We thing the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained, not on the ground that the facts stated do not show the assessment to have been illegally made, but on the ground that they do not show any cause of action in favor of the appellant company. The tax was assessed, not against it, but against the individual stockholders. Each stockholder had the right to decide for himself whether he would pay the tax or resist it. The law neither required nor authorized the bank to pay the taxes of its individual stockholders upon this or any other property which might be assessed against them. It was a matter personal to each stockholder, and there is nothing in the complaint or in the law itself showing or giving to the company, as an independent origanization, the right to decide or act for them individually or collectively. The wrong was against the stockholders severally, and not against the independent incorporated company, and it cannot maintain an action upon a grievance in which it has no corporate interest. This exact...