Town of Farmington v. Downing

• Decision Date: 28 July 1893
• Parties: TOWN OF FARMINGTON v. DOWNING et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

30 A. 345

61 N.H. 441

TOWN OF FARMINGTON

v. DOWNING et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Strafford.

July 28, 1893.

Case reserved from Strafford county.

Bill by the Town of Farmington against Amos W. Downing and others. Case discharged.

April 1, 1890, Downing was the owner of 50 shares of the capital stock of the Farmington National Bank at Farmington, and was assessed a tax thereon in Farmington of $129.25. April 1, 1891, he was the owner of 100 shares of stock, and was assessed a tax thereon in Farmington of $283. The shares at the time of the respective assessments were, ever since have been, and still are, pledged by Downing to the Cochecho Savings Bank as collateral security for money owing by him to the latter bank in a sum equal to the par value of the shares, and upon which he was, and still is, paying interest April 1, 1890, Downing was, and ever since has been, a citizen and resident of Haverhill, in the state of Massachusetts, and the plaintiff has exercised due diligence, and has been unable to collect either tax. The defendant claims that the shares were not liable to taxation, because of his indebtedness to the savings bank. The question the parties intend to raise by the foregoing agreed statement of facts is whether the doctrine of Weston v. Manchester, 62 N. H. 574, and Peavey v. Greenfield, 9 Atl. 722, 64 N. H. 284, applies to a nonresident if it does, Downing is entitled to the benefit of it.

G. E. Cochrane, for plaintiff.

R. G. Pike, for Downing.

CLARK, J. State taxation of national bank shares is permitted, subject to the restriction that it shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the same state. Rev. St U. S. § 5219. For taxable purposes, Downing's national bank stock is to be treated as money on hand or at interest, and if he had been a resident of this state the excess only of the value of the stock over his interest-bearing indebtedness would have been taxable (Weston v. Manchester, 62 N. H. 574; Peavey v. Greenfield, 64 N. H. 284, 9 Atl. 722), and, as the value of the stock did not exceed the amount of his indebtedness, it would not have been taxable. The taxable value of the shares is not determined by the residence of the owner. If the stock was not taxable to Downing as a citizen of New Hampshire, it was not taxable to him as a citizen of Massachusetts. The imposition of a higher tax upon him as a citizen of Massachusetts than he would be obliged to pay as a citizen of this state would be in conflict with the provision of the federal constitution that the citizen of each state...