Louisville v. Third National Bank
174 U.S. 435 (1899)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Louisville v. Third National Bank, 174 U.S. 435 (1899)

Louisville v. Third National Bank

No. 884

Argued February 28, March 2, 1899

Decided May 15, 1899

174 U.S. 435

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Syllabus

Third National Bank of Louisville v. Stone, Auditor, ante,174 U. S. 432, followed in holding that taxes like those here in question are illegal because levied upon the, property and franchise of the bank, and not upon the shares of stock in the names of the shareholders.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee, the Third National Bank, filed its bill to enjoin the collection of certain taxes, relying upon grounds in all respects like unto those alleged in case No. 404, ante, p. 174 U. S. 432. There was, however, this difference between the facts of the latter case and those arising on this record: in this case, the taxes sought to be enjoined were levied prior to the renewal of the charter of the bank. Because of this difference, the court below concluded that the want of power to assess and levy was conclusively established by the presumption of the thing adjudged arising from the decree of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, to which we have referred in case No. 404. We need not, however, consider the question of res judicata, upon which the court below based its conclusion, as we have, in case No. 404, just announced, held, entirely without reference to the plea of res judicata, that taxes in form exactly like those here in question were illegal because levied upon the property and franchise of the bank, and not upon the shares of stock in the names of the shareholders. It follows therefore that the decree below which restrained the collection of the taxes was correct, and it is therefore

Affirmed.

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.