Union Planters Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis No 67 Union Planters Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis No 221

Decision Date13 April 1903
Docket Number221,Nos. 67,s. 67
Citation23 S.Ct. 604,189 U.S. 71,47 L.Ed. 712
PartiesUNION & PLANTERS' BANK OF MEMPHIS, Appt. , v. CITY OF MEMPHIS and John H. Alsup, Trustee. NO 67 UNION & PLANTERS' BANK OF MEMPHIS, Appt. , v. CITY OF MEMPHIS. NO 221
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The Union & Planters' Bank of Memphis was incorporated under a charter granted by the general assembly or the state of Tennessee in 1858, which contained the following provision: 'That said company shall pay an annual tax of 1/2 of 1 per cent on each share of stock subscribed, which shall be in lieu of all other taxes.' The corporation was located in the city of Memphis, Shelby county, Tennessee, and that city, pursuant to an act of the legislature of Tennessee, assessed an ad valorem tax for the year 1899, for municipal purposes, on the capital stock of the bank. The bank thereupon filed its bill in the circuit court of the United States for the western division of the western district of Tennessee, in which it was alleged that the law under which the assessment was made impaired the obligation of the contract created by the above-quoted clause of the charter. The bill further averred that in a former litigation between the bank and the city, wherein it was sought to enforce a municipal assessment of taxes on the capital stock of the bank for the years 1888, 1889, and 1890, it was adjudged by the supreme court of Tennessee that, by the provision aforesaid, the capital stock of the corporation was exempt from all general taxation. The record and judgment in that suit were set out in full, and pleaded as a final judicial determination of the bank's exemption from the payment of ad valorem taxes on its capital stock; and it was averred that the judgment so pleaded was based on the identical claim of exemption now asserted, and on identically the same facts and conditions under which this assessment was made.

The prayer was that the assessment be canceled, and complainant be declared to be exempt from the payment to the city of ad valorem taxes on its capital stock.

Defendants demurred, and the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, November 6, 1900, whereupon complainant prayed and perfected an appeal to, and also took a writ of error from, the United States circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit, and the case was docketed there on or about November 27, 1900.

On February 11, 1901, complainant prayed, and was granted an appeal from the decree of the circuit court directly to this court, the record was filed here, March 23, 1901, and the case is now No. 67.

The case in the circuit court of appeals was heard June 10, 1901, and the decree below was affirmed October 21, 1901. 49 C. C. A. 455, 111 Fed. 561. Thereupon complainant, appellant in that court, prosecuted an appeal from its decree to this court, and the case was docketed here January 13, 1902, and is now No. 221.

Both cases were submitted, as one case, on printed briefs.

Messrs. William H. Carroll and Tim E. Cooper for appellant.

Messrs. Luke E. Wright and John H. Watkins for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Diversity of citizenship did not exist, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court rested solely on the ground that the cause of action arose under the Constitution of the United States. The appeal lay directly to this court under § 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 547), and not to the circuit court of appeals. American Sugar Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646. Nevertheless, an appeal having been prosecuted to the latter court, and having there gone to decree, an appeal was allowed to this court because the judgment was not made final in that court by § 6 of the act. But the case being here, and the jurisdiction of the circuit court having depended on the sole ground that it arose under the Constitution, we are constrained to reverse the decree of the circuit court of appeals, not on the merits, but by reason of the want of jurisdiction in that court. If this were not so, the right to two appeals would exist in every similar case, notwithstanding, as we have repeatedly held, that such was not the intention of the act. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359, 41 L. ed. 745, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 343; Loeb v. Columbia Twp. 179 U. S. 472, 45 L. ed. 280, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 45 L. ed. 859, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646.

In Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 171 U. S. 138, 43 L. ed. 108, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808, an appeal was taken to this court and also to the circuit court of appeals, and a motion was made in each court to dismiss the appeal, whereupon, by reason of the circumstances, we granted a writ of certiorari, and brought up the record from the latter court before it had proceeded to decree. The question as to which was the correct route to reach this court became immaterial, and we disposed of the ease on its merits. But in the present case the circuit court of appeals went to decree, and we are obliged to deal with the appeal therefrom, in doing which the jurisdiction of that court necessarily comes under review.

The questions on the merits are, however, presented for disposition on the direct appeal from the circuit court.

In Shelby County v. Union & Planters' Bank (1895) 161 U. S. 149, 40 L. ed. 650, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558, it was decided that the capital stock of the bank was not exempt from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Smith v. Mosier
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 23 Marzo 1909
    ... ... $221.45, or $100, there being a dispute as to the ... Municipal Court of the city of Buffalo against said Mosier & ... Summers to ... Y. Supp. 873; ... City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige (N.Y.) 570. The purpose ... Hegeman, 98 N.Y. 351; Honsinger v. Union Carriage & ... Gear Co., 175 N.Y. 229, 230, 67 ... 963; ... Union & P. Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 23 Sup.Ct ... 604, 47 L.Ed. 712; ... ...
  • Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 1984
    ... ... 8 In Rush v. Maple Heights, 167 Ohio St. 221, 147 N.E.2d 599 (1958), however, the Supreme ... McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 N.E.2d 67 (1943); Whitehead v. General Tel. Co., 20 Ohio ...           In Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 75, 23 ... ...
  • Coppedge v. Clinton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 28 Julio 1934
    ... ... City, Okl. (Tom Wallace, of Sapulpa, Okl., and Wayne ... Bank of Bristow, Oklahoma, was appointed by the county ... Union & Planters' Bank v. City of Memphis (C. C. A. 6) ... ...
  • Baker v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 13 Enero 1998
    ... ... First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (C.A.2 1968) (New York bank ... recovered in one State of the Union, when proved in the courts of another ... 6 (quoting Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 75, 23 S.Ct. 604, ... ...
  • 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