LOUISIANA
v.
NEW ORLEANS
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.
Louisiana sought to overturn a state court decision that allowed taxation of real estate purchased by the Citizens' Bank through foreclosure of its stock mortgages, arguing the decision violated the bank's charter by making capital property taxable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Louisiana court's judgment, holding that property acquired through such foreclosure was not part of the bank's capital and therefore remained subject to taxation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (54 total)
-
Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2001)…DCA 1973). And requiring payment of a sum of money into the registry of the court unrelated to filing fees as a condition for defending a lawsuit has long been declared constitutionally impermissible. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897). Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d at 901. . See also Bass v. Department of Corrections, 684 So. 2d 834, 835-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (striking on an access to courts analysis pris- . on rules which impermissibly restricted inmates' ability to file lega…
-
Mayflower Inv. Co. v. Brill, 137 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1939)…cess guarantees to a party notice and an opportunity to be heard before his rights are taken away from him by order, decree or judgment of any court. See Windsor v. MaVeigh, 93 U. S. 274, 23 L. Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 17 S. C. 841, 42 L. Ed. 215; Glazier v. Rosoff (Conn.) 179 A. 407; Hunter v. May, 25 S. W. 580. We are here dealing with a direct, and not a collateral attack. Our conclusion is that the court below erred in denying the petition to vacate said order of dismissal, and to rein…
-
G.B.B. Invs., Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…2d DCA 1973). And requiring payment of a sum of money into the registry of the court unrelated to filing fees as a condition for defending a lawsuit has long been declared constitutionally impermissible. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897). The Supreme Court of Florida in Carter v. Sparkman, 335 So. 2d 802, 805 (Fla.1976), recently spoke to the limited nature of the restrictions which can be constitutionally placed on a party’s right to free access to the courts. The Court sta…
Previewing 3 of 54 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1897)