ROSENBLATT
v.
JOHNSTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that personal assets and property of an insolvent national bank held by a receiver appointed under federal law are exempt from state taxation, as the bank's corporate capacity continues to exist during receivership and the property retains the same exempt status it possessed before the receiver's appointment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The .single question in this case is, whether the personal assets and personal property of an insolvent national bank in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, in accordance with the provision of sect. 5234 of the" Éevised Statutes, are exempt from taxation under State laws, and we have no hesitation in saying that in our opinion they are. Such property and assets, in legal contemplation, still belong to the bank, though in tfie hands of a receiver, to be' administered under the law. The bank did not cease to exist on the appointment of the receiver. Its corporate capacity continues until its affairs are finally wound up and its assets distributed. Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 id. 498 ; Bank v. Kennedy, 17 id. 19. If the shares have any value, they are taxable in the hands of the holders or owners, under sect. 5219 of the Revised Statutes ; but the property held by the receiver is exempt to the same extent it was before his appointment.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. The Am. Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 97 Fla. 411 (Fla. 1929)…stment securities of a national bank are not assessed does not justify an illegal discrimination in assessing the shares in the national bank. A national bank’s personal property is not subject to taxation by State authority. Rosenblatt v. Johnston, 104 U. S. 462, 26 L. Ed. 832; City and County of San Francisco v. Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank of San Francisco, 92 Fed. R. 273; Coving-City Nat. Bank v. City of Covington, 21 Fed. R. 484; Stapylton v. Thaggard, 91, Fed. R. 93; People v. Nat. Bank of D. O. Mills &…1 / 2
-
Twyman v. Smith, 119 Fla. 365 (Fla. 1935)…for a winding up of its business and affairs shall remain unaffected by what the State Comptroller has summarily done prior thereto in taking charge of its business, assets and affairs and appointing a liquidator therefor (See Rosenblatt v. Johnson, 104 U. S. 462, 26 L. Ed. 832). Consequently prior to judicial confirmation of the Comptroller’s petition for the final winding up and liquidation of such an alleged unsound or insolvent banking, trust or building and loan institution under the statutes, such ins…
-
Des Moines Nat'l Bank v. Fairweather, 263 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1923)…of the banks, their property or the shares of their capital stock otherwise than in conformity with the terms and restrictions embodied. in the assent given by Congress to such taxation. People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 543; Rosenblatt v. Johnston, 104 U. S. 462; Mercantile National Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 154; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 440; Owensboro National Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 669; First National Bank of Gulfport v. Adams, 258 U. S. 362. The congressional assent…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383 (U.S. 1871)