Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. Chase

Decision Date07 August 1930
Docket Number22259.,22266,22228,22229
Citation290 P. 697,157 Wash. 351
PartiesWASHINGTON MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK, a Corportion, Appellant, v. Samuel H. CHASE, Donald C. McInnis, and Fred K. McBroom, Comprising Tax Commission of State of Washington; and three other cases.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

On petitions for rehearing.


For former opinions, see 289 P. 536, 551, 554, 555.


Respondents having filed in these cases a petition for a rehearing, and Messrs. Arthur G. Cohen and Lester M. Livengood, as amici curiae, having also filed a petition for a rehearing, the two petitions have been considered together.

Amici curiae argue that certain language used by this court in the opinions filed in Aberdeen Savings & Loan Association v. Chase, 289 P. 536, and Burr, Conrad & Broom, Inc. v. Chase, 289 P. 551, indicates that the court intended to lay down certain principles of constitutional law which affect other existing laws providing for the raising of revenue, and which may be construed as limiting the power of the state Legislature in enacting future legislation providing for the levying of other and different species of taxes. In order to clarify the situation, the court now states that the opinions above cited were rendered with a view to determining the questions presented by the cases at bar, and those questions only; that the majority of the court was of the opinion that the legislation therein attacked must be held, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to attempt to establish a property and not an excise or corporation franchise tax; that being a property tax, the same could not be levied upon a certain class of corporations only and not upon copartnerships or individuals engaged in the same business. The majority of the court was also of the opinion that under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Macallen Co. v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620, 49 S.Ct. 432, 73 L.Ed. 874, the Legislature of this state had no legal authority to provide for a tax based upon income from which income revenue derived from United States securities should not be deducted.

The opinions rendered should not be construed as determining any question which was not before the court, and the language of the opinions should be limited to the matters expressly decided.

With this explanation, the petitions asking for a rehearing are denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Acme Finance Co. v. Huse
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1937
    ...Spokane & Eastern Trust Co. v. Hart, 127 Wash. 541, 221 P. 615; Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351, 289 P. 536, 290 P. 697, 71 A.L.R. 232; State ex Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wash. 75, 59 P.2d 1101. Having come to the conclusion above stated, the questions raised by the plaintif......
  • In re Verchot's Estate
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1940
    ...of the United States is authoritative and is binding upon us. Aberdeen Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase, 157 Wash. 351, 289 P. 536, 290 P. 697, 71 A.L.R. 232. the decision of this court in the case of In re Cross' Estate, 152 Wash. 459, 278 P. 414, in which a different result was reached, must......

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