Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/507

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 484. § 484. With reference to these statutory provisions, it was held that the New York statute, passed March 9, 1865, by which it was enacted that shares in a national bank held by any person or body corporate should be " included in the valu- ation of the personal property of such person or body corporate in the assessment of taxes in the town or ward where such bank- ing association is located, and not elsewhere," but which did not provide that the tax imposed should not exceed the rate imposed on the shares of any of the banks organized under state authority, is unwarranted and void, no tax having been laid by the state on shares in the stock of state banks, though there was a tax on the capital of such banks. 1 It was held, however, that, within the limits of the National Banking Act, a state mi^ht tax the entire interest of the shareholder in national banking shares ; and that, too, without regard to the fact that a part or the whole of the capital of the bank was invested in Federal bonds exempted from state taxation by act of Congress. Such a tax the court considered but a tax on the new uses or privileges conferred by the charters of national banks in respect of the bonds, and a valid condition annexed to their new use. 2 If the rate of taxation by a state on the shares in national banks is not greater than the rate upon the moneyed capital of individuals which is subject to taxation ; that is, if no greater proportion or percentage of tax is levied on the valuation of such shares than is levied upon other taxable moneyed capital in the hands of citizens v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526. The ter- ritories possess the same power as the states to tax national banks. Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S, 438. See, Owensboro Nat. Bank o. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, holding that a tax on the franchise of a national bank is invalid. Third National Bank v. Stone, 174 U. S. 432. The legislature may tax the prop- erty of a corporation and also tax the shareholders separately on their shares. Cook v. City of Burlington, 59 Iowa, 251. 1 Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573. 2 Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, Chase, C. J., and Wayne and Swayne, J J., dissenting. Ac- cord, Bradley v. People, 4 Wall. 459; Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353 ; in which last case the court held that a tax might, properly speaking, be a tax on shares, though it was collected from the bank instead of from the individual shareholders. See, also, Mercantile B'k v. New York, 121 U. S. 128; People v. Home Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 328; Union Bank v. City of Richmond, 94 Va. 316; Cleveland Trust Co. v. Lander, 62 Oh. St. 266; compare Philadelphia Contributionship v. Commonwealth, 98 Pa. St. 48. 487