Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/265

 HAT. ALBANY EXCHANÔB BANK V. HILLS. 258 �and doea not vary essentially in its provisions from the earlier act, exeept that it expressly declares that in the assessmeut of bank shares each stockholder shall be allowed ail the de- ductions and exemptions alldwed by law, in assessing 'the value of other taxable personal property owned by individûal citizens of the state, and the assessment and taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is made or assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individûal citizens of this state. This act was wholly unnecessary, if, as iscontended for the defendants, the original act should be construed as though the provisions of the general laws relating to reduc- tions were incorporated in it. It is much to be regretted that the conclusions thusreached may lead to the loss of a large sum in taxes justly due from tax payers to the municipality represented by the defendants. But the resuit must be attributed to ill-considered legislation, which, by attempting to impose an exceptional and unjust rule of tax- ation upon shareholders of national banks, has sô far over- shot its mark as to exonerate them from any taxation. �It is insisted for the defendants that the complainant ianot the proper party to resist the payment of the tax, and that the stockholders are the only persons who can complain ; and it is also insisted that an action to enjoin the collection of the tax is not the appropriate remedy. These objections may properly be considered together. The general rule that a bill in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax is familiar ; but the right to the relief sought here rests upon the ground that it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of suits likely to arise, owing to the peculiar position which the com- plainant occupies toward its shareholders on the one side, and the defendants on the other. �The act of 1866 makes it the duty of every banking asso- ciation to retain so much of any dividend or dividends belong- ing to its stockholders as may be necessary to pay any taxes assessed in pursuance of that act, and the case shows that most of the shareholders of the complainant paid to the com- plainant the amounts severally assessed upon their shares for the tax in controversy, or allowed the amount of the assess- ����