TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Louisville v. Third National Bank

Louisville v. Third Nat'l Bank, 174 U.S. 435 (1899)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 15, 1899
Docket
No. 364
Judges
White
Citations
174 U.S. 43519 S. Ct. 87443 L. Ed. 10371899 U.S. LEXIS 1508
Syllabus
Third National Bank of Louisville v. Stone, Auditor, ante, 432, followed in holding that taxes like those here in question are illegal, because levied upon the property and franchise of the bank, and not upon the shares of stock in the names of the shareholders.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion — White

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,

How later courts describe this case

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

1903: 11905: 11937: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. First Nat. Bank v. City of Covington129 F. 792 (1903)
  2. James v. Dravo Contracting Co.302 U.S. 134 (1937)
  3. Bank v. State52 S.E. 494 (W. Va. 1905)

Most recent

  1. James v. Dravo Contracting Co.302 U.S. 134 (1937)
  2. Bank v. State52 S.E. 494 (W. Va. 1905)
  3. First Nat. Bank v. City of Covington129 F. 792 (1903)

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