Article Text
County National bank of Chicago, and by the latter transferred in violation of an agreement with the Wyandotte bank to the New York State Loan & Trust company, of which plaintiff in error is receiver. This court holds First-That as between the complainant and the Cook County bank there is a prefect defense against the note to the extent of $4,868, which amount stood to the credit of the Wyandotte bank on the books of the Cook County bank at the time of the latter's failure. Second-That plaintiff in error can claim no more or greater right than the Cook County bank had, and that complainants are therefore entitled to a return of the note and collaterals on the payment of the sum of $132. The decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with costs. 157-Hugh Shaw, et al, plaintiffs in error, VS. the Merchants' National Bank of St. Lous, in error, to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. The controversy in this case relates to the ownership of 143 bales of cotton, of which defendent in error claims to be the owner, but of which plaintiffs in error came into possession by means of a bill of lading which, it 18 alleged, was stolen by parties who transferred it to plaintiff in error. This court holds that the purchaser of a stolen bill of lading who purchases with reason tc believe that the vender wasn't the owner of the bill, in that it was held to secure payment of an outstanding draft, is not a bonafide purchaser, and heisn't entitled to hold the merchandise covered by the bill against its true owner. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs and interest. No. 19. The People of the State of New York ex rel. C.H. Williams, plaintiff in error, VS. William J. Weaver et al., assessors in error, to the court of appeals of New York. This case involves the question of the legality of the State's action in virtually discriminating against capital invested in national bank stock, in valuation and assessment made for State taxes. This court holds: First-That the provision of the national bank law that State taxation on shares of banks shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed on other moeyned capital; in the hands of citizens of a State, has reference to the entire process of assessment and includes the valuation of shares as well as rates of per centage charged at such valuation. Second-That the statute of a State, therefore, which establishes a mode of assessment by which the shares of national banks are valued higher in proportion to their real value than other moneyed capital, is in conflict with the act of Congress, even though no greater percentage is levied on that valuation than on the valuation of other moneyed capital. Third-That the statute of New York of 1866, which permits the debtor to deduct the amount of his debts from the valuation of all his personal property, including moneyed capital, except his bank shares, taxes those shares at a greater rate than other moneyed capital, and is therefore void as to shares on national banks. Judgment of the New York court of appeals is reversed. No. 693. C. P. Williams, plaintiff in error, VS. Wm. J. Weaver et al., assessor in error to the court of appeals of New York. This was a suit brought by Williams to hold the assessors of Albany individually liable for sums which he and others had been compelled to pay as taxes on national bank stock by reason of unlawful assessments made by defendants in error in their official character as the board of assessors of the city of Albany. The New York court of appeals held that in the absence of fraud or intentional wrong the 88866sors were not personally liable in damages for any error in the assessment. This court finds no error in the record which it can properly review, and the judgment is therefore affirmed with costs. No. 563. William Cummings, treasurer, etc., appellant, VS. the Merchants' National Bank of Toledo, Ohio. Appeal from the United States circuit court for the northern district of Ohio. This was an action to enjoin the collection of an alleged excess of State, county and city taxes levied on the bank through an inequitable system of property valuation. This court holds: First-That the act of the Ohio legislature, creating a board for the equalization of bank shares, is not in violation of the constitution of that State; but Second-That the rule or principle of unequal valuation adopted by the local boards of assessment is unconstional and works a manifest injustice to the owners of bank shares. Third-That when this rule or principle 18 applied to alarge class of individuals or corporations, equity may properly interfere to restrain this unconstitutional exercise of power. Fourth-That the appropriate mode of relief in such cases is on payments of the amount laid which is equal to that assessed on other property, to enjoin the collection of the illegal excess. Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion by Justice Miller, Chief Justice Waite dissenting. No. 827. Frederick W. Peiton, treasurer, etc., VS. The Commercial National Bank of Cleveland. Appeal from the United States circuit court for the northern district of Ohio. This case grows out of a state of facts similar to that set forth in the case of the Merchants' National bank above, No. 563. This court holds that a systematic and intentional assessment of national bank shares at their value, while all other moneyed capital is assessed far below its true value is a violation of the act of Congress, prescribing the rule by which shares shall be taxed, and that upon payment of a sum which bank shares ought to pay under said rule, a court of equity will enjoin the State authorities from collecting the remainder. Decree affirmed with costs. Opinion by Justice Miller, Chief Justice Waite dissenting. No. 104. Wm. T. Wolsey et al, appellant, VS. Richard B. Chapman. Appeal from the United States circuit court for the district of Iowa. This case involves title to lands in the State of Iowa known as the Des Moines river grant, Chapman claims title under the grant for improvement of the Des Moines river made by acts of Corgress in 1846, 1861 and 1862, while Wolsey claims under the half million acre grant, known as the school grant made by the acts of 1841 and 1849. This court holds: First-That no title passed to the State by the approval and selection of the lands in dispute under the act of 1841. Being lawfully reserved from sale at the time of selection they were net included in the grant which that act provided for. Second-That Chapman has a right to question Wolsey's title. Neither took title from the State at first, and as the final grant from
