FRANKLIN BRANCH BANK
v.
THE STATE OF OHIO
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 Section 60 of Ohio's 1845 banking incorporation statute constituted a binding contract that fixed the method and amount of taxation for the Franklin Branch Bank, and therefore Ohio's 1859 tax assessment law, which imposed a higher tax under a different rule, violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The Court affirmed its prior decisions establishing that states cannot unilaterally alter fixed tax rates agreed upon in corporate charters and reversed the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment upholding the higher assessment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice WAYNE.
The single question in this case is, whether the 60th section of the statute of Ohio, entitled “An act to incorporate.the State Bank of Ohio and other banking companies,” passed February 24, 1845, constitutes a contract for’ a fixed amount and mode of taxation; and whether the statute of Ohio, passed April 5, 1859, entitled “An act for the assessment and taxation of all the property in this State, and for levying taxes thereon, according to its value in money,” impairs that contract.
The amount of tax due from the Franklin Branch, &c., &e., upon the basis of the 60th section, was $1,216 42 for the year 1859; the amount asséssed against it, under the act of the 24th February, 1855, was $4,076 30 for the same year. The case, of course, turns upon the true construction of the 60th section; aud this court has just, said, in the case of the Jefferson Branch of the State Bank of Ohio, &c,, vs. Skelly, (No. 143,) that the 60th section contains a contract for a fixed rule of taxation, and that the act of April 15, 1853, which attempts to assess a larger tax, by a differentrule, was unconstitutional. See also the cases of Knoop vs. Piqua Bank, (16 Howard, 369;) Dodge vs. Woolsey, (18 Howard, 331;) Mechanics and Traders’ Bank vs. Debolt, (ibid., 380.) In all of these cases this, court held, that the 60th section was a contract, and that the various State laws, which attempted to change the rule of taxation fixed by such contract, were void;
We affirm again the unconstitutionality of the law of Ohio tinder which the. tax wás assessed and levied against the Franklin Bank, and direct the reversal of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State óf Ohio now before us by a writ of error. The clerk of this court will, under the direction of this court, issue the proper mandate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Furen, 118 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1960)…ion and powers, or those of the other courts of the United States or of a justice or judge of either, under the constitution and laws of the United States. Poultney v. City of LaFayette, 12 Pet. 472, 9 L.Ed. 1161; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522, 526, 17 L.Ed. 180; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 576, 579, 22 L.Ed. 654.” What does “practice and procedure” of the courts embrace? In the case of Wayman v. Southard, 1825, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253, in construing the words of a statute relating to the practice and…
-
Dravo Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Maxin, 545 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1976)…cial power in recognition of the purpose of the grant. ‘No state law can enlarge it, nor can an act of Congress or rule of court [*379] make it broader than the judicial power may determine to be its true limits.’ The St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522, 527 [17 L.Ed. 180]. The framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that the maritime law should remain unalterable. The purpose was to place the entire subject, including its substantive as well as its procedural features, under national control. From the beginn…
-
Woodbury v. Andrew Jergens Co., 61 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1932)…ur v. Cauble, 255 U. S. 356, 41 S. Ct. 338, 65 L. Ed. 673; Venner v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 209 U. S. 24, 28 S. Ct. 328, 52 L. Ed. 666; Hudson v. Parker, 156 U. S. 277, 15 S. Ct. 450, 39 L. Ed. 424; The Steamer St. Lawrence, 66 U. S. (1 Black) 522, 17 L. Ed. 180; Soderberg v. Atlantic Lighterage Corp., 19 F.(2d) 286 (C. C. A. 2); Aktieselskabet Fido v. Lloyd Braziliero, 283 F. 62 (C. C. A. 2). A rule of court which conflicts with the statute is invalid (Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. U. S. ex rel. Gibson,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence