BANK OF COMMERCE
v.
SEATTLE; SEATTLE BANK V. SEATTLE; PUGET SOUND BANK V. SEATTLE; WASHINGTON BANK V. KING COUNTY

U.S. | 1897-04-12
Nos. 223, 224, 225, 226
Me. Justice Harlan, Me. Justice Brown and Me. Justice White dissent for the reason stated in their memorandum of dissent in No. 38, ante, 440, 462.
166 U.S. 463 Supreme Court of the United States (1897) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 41 L. Ed. 1079 · 17 S. Ct. 996 · SCDB 1896-151 · 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2037
Cited by 24 cases

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.

Synopsis

Several banks challenged state tax assessments, alleging that Washington failed to assess other taxable moneyed capital owned by resident citizens in the same manner as national bank capital, thereby violating federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed the state supreme court's judgments, finding that the additional allegation that unassessed capital represented all moneyed capital in the cities except that invested in incorporated banks did not change the conclusion reached in the related First National Bank of Aberdeen case, as the record still failed to show whether the exempted capital competed with national bank investments.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Shiras

Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion of the court.

The bills of complaint in these cases are substantially of the same legal import, so far as any Federal question is concerned, with that considered in the case of The First National Bank of Aberdeen v. The County of Chehalis, ante, 440, in which the opinion of this court has just been delivered.

The only difference that we notice is that, in connection with the allegation that there existed large amounts of taxable moneyed capital owned by resident citizens and invested in interest-bearing loans and securities, there is made' the additional allegation that all of said-other moneyed capital referred to was all the moneyed capital in the city owned by resident individual citizens and invested in interest-bearing loans, discounts and securities, except that invested in incorporated banks located in the city.

It is not perceived .that this additional allegation calls for • any different conclusion than the one reached in the previous case. We are still uninformed whether the moneyed capital left unassessed was, as to any material portion thereof, moneyed capital coming into competition Avith that of national banks. The averment that the moneyed capital exempted Avas' “ taxable ” does not enable us to say that it therefore consisted of investments within the meaning of the term “moneyed capital” as used in the act of' Congress.

The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is, -in . each case,

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reason stated in their memorandum of dissent in No. 38, ante, 440, 462.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Thomas, 449 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
    …and cases cited therein. See also Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948) ; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 586, 20 S.Ct. 494, 44 L.Ed. 597 (1900) ; American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464, 468, 17 S.Ct. 618, 41 L.Ed. 1079 (1887). . E. g., Hibdon v. United States, supra note 16, 204 F. 2d at 838. . 125 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 369 F. 2d 960 (1966), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 934, 87 S.Ct. 2058, 18 L.Ed.2d 996 (1967). . Id. at 185-186, 369 F. 2d at 962-963. Variations from the…
  • Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834 (6th Cir. 1953)
    …t were of opinion that life and liberty, when involved in criminal prosecutions, would not be adequately secured except through- the unanimous verdict of twelve jurors.” In American Publishing Company v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464, 468, 17 S.Ct. 618, 619, 41 L.Ed. 1079, the Court said: “Now, unanimity was one of the peculiar and essential features of trial by jury at the common law. No authorities are needed to sustain this proposition. Whatever may be true as to legislation which changes any mere details of a jur…
  • First Nat'l Bank of Albuquerque v. Albright, 208 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1908)

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw