Fidelity Savings Bank v. State

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case was heard jointly with the one in No. 51 of the docket of the present term ante p. 196. In each case the State sued the bank as a savings bank to recover the franchise tax, due under sec. 86 of Art. 81 of the Code of 1888, on the deposits held by it.on January 1st, 1904. ■ In each case the defendant demurred to the declaration and the demurrer was overruled. The German Savings Bank of Cumberland, the defendant in No. 51, then pleaded that it was not a Savings Bank but an ²⁰⁷ ordinary State bank of discount.

The State demurred to the plea and refused to reply further when its demurrer was overruled, whereupon judgment was entered against it and it appealed. In the present case the Fidelity Savings Bank of Frostburg, the defendant, after its demurrer to the declaration was overruled pleaded the general issue and payment, but afterwards with the plaintiff’s consent withdrew its pleas and suffered judgment to go against it on rule plea and then took the present appeal. In both cases the defendant in support of the demurrer to the declaration relied upon the Act of 1904, ch. 212, which attempted to relieve every savings bank having a capital stock of $20,000, or over from the payment of the franchise tax imposed by sec. 86 of Art. 81 of the Code. We held the Act of 1904 invalid, in the German Savings Bank case, because of defects in its title and stated the grounds of our decision in our opinion filed in that case.

Without repeating the reasons stated in that opinion we make the same rulings in the present case as to the invalidity of that Act. The difference between the lines of defense adopted in the two cases is that the German Savings Bank after its demurrer was overruled, insisted by its pleas that it was in fact not a savings bank while the present appellee admits that it is a savings bank but insists that the provisions of sec. 86 of Art. 81 imposing the franchise tax apply only to savings banks having no capital stock. It is admitted that the appellee has a capital stock of $25,000. ■ ' The position thus taken by the appellant is in our opinion untenable. There is nothing in the language used in sec. 86 to indicate an intention on the part of the Legislature to exempt, from the tax there imposed, any class of savings banks.

On the contrary the expressions there used in describing the institutions to which the law is intended to apply are