Bank of Commerce v. SeattleAnnotate this Case
166 U.S. 463 (1897)
U.S. Supreme Court
Bank of Commerce v. Seattle, 166 U.S. 463 (1897)
Bank of Commerce v. Seattle
Argued March 23, 1897
Decided April 12, 1897
166 U.S. 463
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Bank of Aberdeen v. Chehalis County,166 U. S. 440, affirmed, followed, .and applied to the several facts in these respective cases.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The bills of complaint in these cases are substantially of the same legal import, so far as any federal question is concerned, with that considered in the case of First Nat. Bank of Aberdeen v. County of Chehalis, ante,166 U. S. 440, in which the opinion of this Court has just been delivered.
The only difference that we notice is that, in connection with the allegation that there existed large amounts of taxable moneyed capital owned by resident citizens and invested in interest-bearing loans and securities, there is made the additional
allegation that all of said other moneyed capital referred to was all the moneyed capital in the city owned by resident individual citizens and invested in interest-bearing loans, discounts, and securities except that invested in incorporated banks located in the city.
It is not perceived that this additional allegation calls for any different conclusion than the one reached in the previous case. We are still uninformed whether the moneyed capital left unassessed was, as to any material portion thereof, moneyed capital coming into competition with that of national banks. The averment that the moneyed capital exempted was "taxable" does not enable us to say that it therefore consisted of investments within the meaning of the term "moneyed capital" as used in the act of Congress.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is, in each case,
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE BROWN, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE dissent.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.