First Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. Louisiana Tax Comm'n, 289 U.S. 60 (1933)

U.S. Supreme Court, (March 20, 1933)

Docket number: 293
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20017224
Id. vLex: VLEX-20017224

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

Constitution of the United States (Annotated) - Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1: Privileges and immunities of citizenchip, due process and equal protection

U.S. Supreme Court - Michigan Nat. Bank v. Michigan, 365 U.S. 467 (1961)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court FIRST NAT. BK. OF SHREVEPORT v. LOUISIANA TAX COM'N, 289 U.S. 60 (1933)

[Page 289 U.S. 60, 61]

Messrs. Howard B. Warren and Lewell C. Butler, both of Shreveport, La ., for appellants.

Mr. Elias Goldstein, of Shreveport, La., for appellees.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Three national banks, located at Shreveport, La.,-the Commercial National, the First National, and the American National-brought, in a district court of that state, separate suits against the Tax Commission and officials of Caddo parish, to annul the assessment of all taxes, other than upon real estate, which had been imposed upon their corporate property for the year 1930, under Louisiana Act No. 14 of 1917, Extra Sess ., as amended by Act No. 116 of 1922 and Act No. 221 of 1928. The claim in each case was that the statute as applied is void, because other moneyed capital employed in the same locality in competition with the capital of the plaintiff is not taxed at all, or is taxed less heavily, in violation of both section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 USCA 548) and the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Footnote 1]

[Page 289 U.S. 60, 67]

chattel mortgages. The national banks would never handle such business. They prefer to-and do in fact-lend to such companies.' These findings are supported by the record.

As we should not be warranted in disturbing these, or any of the other, findings of the Supreme Court complained of (compare Georgetown National Bank v. McFarland, 273 U.S. 568, 47 S.Ct. 467), we have no occasion to consider an alternative ground urged for affirmance- that the operation of the taxing system of the state resulted, in fact, in substantial equality between bank shares and other moneyed capital.

Affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 There was also, in each case, a claim that a small tax had been laid illegally upon the plaintiff's furniture and fixtures. The rights of each plaintiff in this regard were expressly reserved by the decree of the Supreme Court of the state.

Other documents:
underwood v massie 10th cir 2003 | 20 CFR 655.500 - Purpose, procedure and applicability of subparts F and G of this pa... | Garces v. U.S. *, 911 F.2d 741 (11th Cir. 1990) | J D Jewell Inc v Ward. 119 Ga App 113 166 S.E.2d 403 1969 | case of tribunal superior de justicia - madrid - sala de lo contencioso-administ... | Agencia de Proteccion del Medio Urbano y Natural.- Anuncio por el que se hace publica la Resolucio... | U.S v Worthington 872 F.2d 1022 2nd Cir 1989 | Anuncio de la Secretaria de Estado de Telecomunicaciones y para la Sociedad de la Informacion sobre notificacion a los titulares de las concesiones administrativ... | anuncio do 2 de maio de 2007, do recadador de zona de vigo, polo que se relacionan procedementos de constrinximento pendentes de n... | Alger v U.S. 845 F.2d 1028 8th Cir 1988 | EDICTO de 14 de mayo de 1992 sobre acuerdos de la Comisión de Urbanismo de Girona referentes al municipio de Ripoll.