Selden v. Equitable Trust Company
Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
Citation | 94 U.S. 419,24 L.Ed. 249 |
Parties | SELDEN v. EQUITABLE TRUST COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Argued by Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Augustus Brandegee and Mr. Jeremiah Halsey, contra.
The Equitable Trust Company is a corporation created by the laws of the State of Connecticut, and its principal office or place of business is at New Haven, in that State. Its In That such is the character of the company, and that such is the nature of its business, is stipulated of record; and the only question presented by the case is, whether a corporation doing such a business is a 'banker' within the meaning of sect. 3407 of the Revised Statutes of the United States relative to internal revenue.
Clearly, the company is not a banker in the ordinary acceptation of the word. But Congress has defined who shall be regarded as bankers, for the purposes of taxation under the revenue laws. Sect. 3407 of the Revised Statutes, p. 673, enacts that 'every incorporated or other bank, and every person, firm, or company having a place of business where credits are opened by the deposit or collection of money or currency, subject to be paid, or remitted upon draft, check, or order, or where money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes, or where stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes are received for discount or for sale, shall be regarded as a bank or as a banker.'
The statute describes three classes of artificial and of natural persons, distinguished by the nature of the business transacted by them, and declares that individuals embraced in either of the classes shall be considered bankers. The first class is composed of those who have a place of business where credits are opened by the deposit or collection of mon y or currency, subject to be paid or remitted upon draft, check, or order. It is not claimed the company engaged in that branch of business, or that they are included in this first class. The agreed state of facts expressly repels any such claim.
The second class are those who have a place of business where money is advanced or loaned on stocks, bonds, bullion, bills of exchange, or promissory notes. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the company is included in this class, because it advances or loans money on bonds. The case, however, states that all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reid
...49 Iowa 317; Wells-Fargo & Co. v. Railroad, 23 F. 469; Loan & Trust Co. v. Helmer, 77 N.Y. 64; Bank v. N. Y., 121 U.S. 138; Selden v. Trust Co., 94 U.S. 419; Beach on Corp. sec. 163. Tested by the foregoing trust companies do not fall within Revised Statutes, 1889, section 3581, forbidding ......
-
In re Prudence Co.
...functions described above do not constitute banking in any sense. The question was almost squarely raised in Selden v. Equitable Trust Company, 94 U. S. 419, 420, 24 L. Ed. 249. The Trust Company therein claimed that it fell for tax purposes within the existing statute which defined a "bank......
-
The State ex rel. Compton v. Buder
... ... Supreme Court of Missouri in Smith v. Kansas City Title ... Company, 255 U.S. 180) a fiscal agent of the United ... States Government, is not ... 2; R. S. United States, sec. 3407; Selden v. Equitable ... Tr. Co., 94 U.S. 419; Kiggins v. Munday, 19 ... Wash ... v. Burnham, 56 Ill.App. 28; Hamilton Natl. Bank v ... Trust Co., 66 Neb. 67. (3) While no act has been passed ... in this State ... ...
-
State v. Reid
...commercial sense of that word, and do not perform the functions of banks, in carrying on the exchange of commerce." The case of Selden v. Trust Co., 94 U. S. 419, was an action for taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws upon bankers. The definition of "banker" is taken from the act of c......