Commercial Bank v. Chambers - 182 U.S. 556 (1901)
U.S. Supreme Court
Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 182 U.S. 556 (1901)
Commercial Bank v. Chambers
Argued and submitted April 26, 1901
Decided May 27, 1901
182 U.S. 556
As the Constitution of Utah distinguished between stock and credits in determining the amount of property of a national bank subject to taxation, shares of stock were not credits, and resident and nonresident shareholders were not entitled to deduct bona fide indebtedness from their shares of stock.
The assessed value of real estate owned by a bank in other states than that in which the bank is located is not to be deducted in determining the amount of assessable property of the bank, unless authorized by the laws of the state in which the bank is situated.
The plaintiff in error is a national banking association doing business at Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. The action below was brought by the bank to enjoin the collection of the alleged illegal portion of certain taxes levied against its shareholders for the year 1898.
Certain provisions of the Constitution and laws of Utah which are claimed to be pertinent to the controversy are excerpted in the margin. [Footnote 1]
The substance of the complaint was that, although the assessor, in valuing the shares of stock of the bank, deducted the
proportionate amount of the assessed value of the real estate of complainant situated in the State of Utah, he neglected and refused to deduct the value of real estate owned by the bank situated without such state, and also refused to allow to certain nonresident stockholders deductions from the valuations of their shares of stock to the amount of their bona fide debts, though allowing deductions of that kind in favor of resident shareholders. Having tendered to the defendant what it claimed to be the lawful amount of the tax due from it, the bank brought this action to enjoin any attempt to collect the full amount of the tax as laid and to compel acceptance of the sum which had been tendered. The trial court decided in favor of the bank. On appeal, however, the supreme court of the state held that the bank was not entitled to the relief prayed, and reversed the judgment in its favor with costs. Error was prosecuted to the judgment of reversal, and the cause is now in this Court for review. 61 P. 560.