Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/530

 518 FBDEBaL BBFOfiTBB. �FiBsx Nat. Base of Chicago v. Fabwbll, Collector, etc. �{Circuit Court, D. Illinois. May 24, 1881.) > �1. Nationai. Banks— Taxation op Shakbb— Invbstment m Goveen- �MBNT Bonds. �In tixe taxation of the sharea of a national bank, the shareholders are not entitled to any allowance for such of the capital and surplus of the bank as may be invested in government bonds. �2. Same— Taxation of Shares — Assbssmhnt. �In the taxation of the shares of a national bank, it must appear that the assessors acted under some agreement or rule which neces- sarily tended to tax such shares at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of Buch State, in order to rendertheir assesament void under section 6219 of the Bevised Statutes.— [Ed. �In Equity. �Hitchcock, Dupree e Judak, for complainant. �Francis Adams, for defendant. �Deummond, C. J. The act of conf^ress oreating national banks declares that the taxation by the different states of the shares of stock in national banking associations shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such states. This is a bill filed by the plaintifif to x-estrain, by injunction, the collection of a tax by the defendant, for the reason, as alleged, that this provision of the statuts bas been violated by the assessment of the shares of stock of the plaintiff in this case. It is stated in the bill that no allowance was made by the assessors for the amount of capital and surplus in- vested in government bonds. This is answered, showing that such allowance need not be made, by the case of Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, and the case of People v. Commis- sioners, i Wall. 244. The bill alleges several cases in which a discrimination is claimed to have been made against the shares of stock of the plaintiff, as that the shares of stock of other banking associations have been assessed at less value. But it is not sufficient that other capital may in fact have been assessed differently from that of the plaintiff. In mak- ��� �