FIDELITY TITLE & TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U. S. 304 (1922)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 259 U. S. 304
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/259/304/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/259/304/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. United States, 259 U.S. 304 (1922)
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. United States
No. 208
Argued April 21, 1922
Decided May 29, 1922
259 U.S. 304
Syllabus
1. The limitation on actions in the Court of Claims on claims arising under the Refunding Act of July 27, 1912, is six years. P. 259 U. S. 305. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, ante, 259 U. S. 296.
2. In an action in the Court of Claims by a corporation engaged in banking and other kind of business to recover bankers' taxes collected under the Act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, § 2, 30 Stat. 448, upon the ground that its capital was not used or employed in banking, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that none of it, or less than the amount for which it was assessed, was used or employed in its banking department. P. 259 U. S. 306. Cf. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, ante, 259 U. S. 296.
3. This burden is not sustained where the business and assets of the several departments were not separated, where the proportions of capital and accumulated profits used in the respective departments were not shown, where there was no finding that the net profits of the banking department came solely from the use of depositors' money, and where a finding that no part of the capital and accumulated profits was used in banking, or findings from which the proportion so used, if any, could be determined were not requested. P. 259 U. S. 306.
4. In providing that, in estimating capital, surplus shall be included, the Act of 1898, supra, takes no account of the technical distinction between surplus and undivided profits often made by banking corporations, but embraces all capital used or employed in banking, including funds designated as undivided profits. P. 259 U. S. 307.
55 Ct.Clms. 535 affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Clams dismissing a petition for recovery of money paid as bankers' special taxes under the Spanish War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898.