County Commissioners v. Farmers & Mechanics' National Bank

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case ■ is taken under the provisions of the Act of 1816, ch. 260, providing for “the general valuation and assessment of property in this State.” “The appellee is a National Bank located in Frederick County, organized under the laws of the United States.' It has a capital stock of $125,000, divided into 5000 shares of the par value of $25.00 each. A portion of the capital is invested in a lob of ground improved by a banking house, such as is necessary for carrying on the banking business, and in furniture for the use of the bank.” “Its shares of capital stock were assessed under the Act of 1816, at $38 per share, to the respective owners thereof. In addition to the assessment of the capital stock to the shareholders, the assessors also assessed against the bank in its corporate name, the said lot of ground and improvements at $5000, and the furniture at $100, which was so returned by the Board of Control and Review to the County Commissioners.” On the petition of the appellee, ¹¹⁹ the Circuit Court ordered that the banking-house, lot and furniture, he struck from the list, &c.

From which order this appeal is taken. The Act of 1876 made it the duty of the assessors, to value the shares of stock in any corporation, at their full cash value. It must he presumed in this case, that the valuation has been made by that standard, nothing appearing to the contrary. But this is not material to the present case.

The question presented by the appeal is, whether under the Constitution and laws of this State, it is competent to assess for the purposes of taxation, both the shares of the capital stock, and the property held by the bank. The objection urged on the part of the appellee is that the stock of the bank represents its whole property, and to tax both would be double taxation, in plain violation of the 15th section of the Declaration of Rights. This is not a new question in this State, and a reference to the decided cases seems to us to set it at rest, without referring to decisions elsewhere. In the Tax Cases, 12 G. & J., 117 , this question was fully argued by able counsel; no formal opinion was delivered by the Court, but in the syllabus setting out the points decided, it is distinctly stated, as the judgment of the Court that “ the property of a bank being represented by the shares of stock therein, both cannot be taxed, and therefore when the tax is imposed on the stock in the hands of shareholders, the property of the bank, real or personal, cannot also be taxed." “The stock of the banks in Baltimore, in the hands of shareholders was rightfully taxed, but the Appeal Tax Court erred in taxing the real and personal property of the same banks.” By an examination of the facts of the case, in reference to which this proposition is stated, it clearly appears that this was the only question presented.

In Gordon’s Ex. vs. M. & C. C. of B., 5 Gill, 231 , the same proposition was distinctly affirmed. The Court say, ¹²⁰ (p, 236,) ci It is perfectly understood that the stock of a' bank is the representative of its whole property, and when a tax has been laid on the stock in the hands of the shareholders, the real and personal estate of the company becomes exempt from taxation. To tax'both the real and personal property, and the