LOUISVILLE
v.
THIRD NATIONAL BANK
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 Third National Bank sought to enjoin Louisville from collecting taxes levied before the bank's charter was renewed, arguing the taxes were invalid under principles established in a companion case. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's injunction, holding that taxes levied directly on a bank's property and franchise rather than on shareholders' stock shares were illegal, without reaching the lower court's alternative res judicata reasoning.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, the Third National Bank, filed its bill to enjoin the collection of certain taxes, relying upon grounds in all respects like unto those alleged in case No. 404, cante, p.
432. There was, however, this difference between the facts of the latter case and those arising on this record -: In this case the taxes sought to be enjoined were levied prior to the renewal of the charter of the bank. Because of this difference the court below concluded that the want of power to assess and levy was conclusively established by the presumption of the thing adjudged arising from the decree of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, to which we have referred in case No.
404. We need not, however, consider the question of res judicata upon which the court below based its conclusion, as we have in case No. 404, just announced, held entirely without reference to the plea of res judicata, that taxes in form exactly like those here in question were illegal because levied upon the property and franchise of the bank, and not upon the shares of stock in the names of the shareholders. It follows, therefore, that the decree below which restrained the collection of the taxes was correct, and it is therefore.
Affirmed,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1937)…. 1, and Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. Monier, 266 U. S. 555, with California v. Central Pacific R. Co., 127 U. S. 1; Owensboro National Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664; Third National Bank v. Stone, 174 U. S. 432; and Louisville v. Third National Bank, 174 U. S. 435. Compare Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, and Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642, with Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218. Compare Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230, Crew Le…