TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Flint v. Board of Aldermen

Waldo Flint v. Board of Aldermen of the City of Boston

Flint v. Bd. of Aldermen, 99 Mass. 141 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1868
Judges
Hoar
Citations
99 Mass. 141
Headnotes
It is within the constitutional powers of Congress to establish a national bank in any state, and provide that the shares of its capital stock shall be exempt from taxation by other states. The U. S. St. of 1864, c. 106, § 41, makes unlawful the imposing by, or by the authority of, a state, of a tax on shares owned by an inhabitant thereof in the capital stock of a national banking association organized under that statute, and located in another state.
Summary
Petition for a writ of certiorari to the aldermen of Boston to reverse their refusal, on appeal from the assessors of Boston to abate a tax assessed in 1867, under the laws of the Commonwealth, St. 1865, c. 242, on forty shares owned by the petitioner, who resided in Boston, in the capital stock of the American Exchange National Bank, a national banking association organized under the U. S. St. of 1864, c. 106, and located in the city and state of New York; the amount of which tax the petitioner, after such refusal, paid under protest; all which was alleged in the petition. The answer admitted the facts alleged; and justified the refusal of the respondents on the ground of the legality of the assessment. The case was reserved by the chief justice, on the petition and answer, for the determination of the full court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hoar

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hoar, J.

The petitioner is a resident of the city of Boston, and has been assessed in that city upon the shares owned by him in a national banking association located in the city of New York. We think the case must be governed by the principles stated in the decision in Austin v. Aldermen of Boston, 14 Allen, 359 . The national banks are artificial bodies created by the laws of the United States. The power of congress to establish them arises from their being suitable instruments for the performance of functions pertaining to the national government. As such instruments, they are not subject to taxation under state authority. And although the shares in their capital stock are so far distinct from the corporations themselves as to be the subject of state taxation, if such taxation is not restricted or prohibited by congress, yet it has been expressly decided by the supreme court of the United States that they are “ a subject matter over which congress and the states may exercise a concurrent power, but from the exercise of which congress, by reason of its paramount authority, may exclude the states.” Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wallace, 573. In that case it was held that a tax on shares in national banks was invalid, which was not *146 levied in conformity with the stipulations in the proviso of the U. S. St. of 1864, c. 106, § 41.

By the construction which was given to that proviso by this court in Austin v. Aldermen of Boston, congress has thereby prohibited the assessment of taxes by any state upon the shares of a national bank established in any other state. The purpose may have been to attract banking capital, and induce the formation of national banks within those states where the rate of taxation is low. But whatever may have been the design or motive, we can have no doubt that it is within the constitutional power of congress to establish a national bank in any state, and to provide that its shares shall have such a local nature as to be exempt from taxation by other states; and that this power has been exercised in the present instance. Abbott v. Bangor, 54 Maine, 540. Certiorari to issue.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1869–1870: 11897–1898: 11899–1900: 11917–1918: 11943–1944: 118692026peak 1869 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Woburn National Bank53 N.E.2d 554 (Mass. 1944)
  2. McHenry v. Downer47 P. 779 (Cal. 1897)
  3. Providence Institution for Savings v. City of Boston101 Mass. 575 (1869)
  4. First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Durr246 F. 163 (S.D. Ohio 1917)
  5. Linton v. Childs32 S.E. 617 (Ga. 1899)

Most recent

  1. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Woburn National Bank53 N.E.2d 554 (Mass. 1944)
  2. First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Durr246 F. 163 (S.D. Ohio 1917)
  3. Linton v. Childs32 S.E. 617 (Ga. 1899)
  4. McHenry v. Downer47 P. 779 (Cal. 1897)
  5. Providence Institution for Savings v. City of Boston101 Mass. 575 (1869)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list