Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/167/407/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/167/407/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Louisiana v. New Orleans, 167 U.S. 407 (1897)
Louisiana v. New Orleans
No. 483
Argued January 15, 18, 1897
Decided May 24, 1897
167 U.S. 407
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Syllabus
New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U.S. 871, affirmed and followed.
The case is stated in the opinion. The case was argued with New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, ante, 167 U. S. 371, as one case.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The reasons given for our decree in the case of New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, just decided, are decisive of this cause, which comes on error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. The controversy presented to that court was whether property bought in by the Citizens' Bank under foreclosure of its stock and stock loan mortgages became a part of its capital, and as such was not liable to taxation. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held, conceding arguendo the nontaxability of the capital, that the real estate so purchased was taxable. State ex Rel. Citizens' Bank v. Board of Assessors, 48 La.Ann. 35.
The theory on which the writ of error was prosecuted is that this decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana constitutes an impairment of the obligations of the contract arising from the charter of the bank.
As, in the case just decided, we have held that the property bought in by the bank under foreclosure of its stock mortgages was not the capital of the bank, and therefore was not covered by the estoppel of the thing adjudged, the conclusions there expressed are in all respects applicable and decisive of the controversy here presented, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is therefore
Affirmed.
