Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Austin v. the Aldermen
74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 694
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1869-04-18
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that the Court could “only consider the statute in connection with the case before” it and thus “our jurisdiction [wa]s at an end” once it “ascertained that [the case] wrought no effect which the act forbids”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Austin v. the Aldermen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 61 opinions
Headnotes
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Review of State Court Judgments On review under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, this Court may consider only whether the plaintiff in error has been deprived of a right secured by the act of Congress upon which he relies; once it is ascertained that the state statute produced no effect forbidden by the act of Congress, the Court's jurisdiction is at an end.
- Tax Law — Power of the States over Federal Instrumentalities The power of taxation, where it exists, is necessarily unlimited in its nature, carrying with it inherently the power to embarrass and destroy; accordingly, the States cannot exercise this power in respect to any of the instrumentalities which the general government may create for the performance of its constitutional functions.
- Tax Law — Waiver of Exemption of Federal Instrumentalities The exemption of federal instrumentalities from state taxation may be waived wholly, or with such limitations and qualifications as the lawmaking power of the nation may deem proper, but the waiver must be clear, and every well-grounded doubt upon the subject should be resolved in favor of the exemption.
- Tax Law — Taxation of National Bank Shares The permission given by act of Congress to tax the shares of national banking associations requires that the shares be included in the valuation of the personal property of the holder, in the assessment of taxes imposed by or under state authority, at the place where the bank is located and not elsewhere; where the shareholder resides in the place where the bank is located, the assessment there in conformity with that requirement deprives him of no right conferred by the act of Congress, notwithstanding a state statute requiring assessment at the shareholder's place of residence. Act of June 3, 1864, ch. 106, § 41, 13 Stat. 112 (construed)
delivered the opinion of the qouit..
This case is brought before us by a writ of error, issued pursuant to the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The legislature of. Massachusetts, by a statute passed on the 15th of May, 1865 (ch. 242), provided for “the taxation of shares in associations for'banking, established .under the laws of the United States,” and prescribed the mode of procedure for that purpose. The statute is confined, to such associations in that State, and to shares ‘held by persons living within its limits. The third section enacts that the assessment for taxation shall be made where the shareholders reside.
The proviso in the act of Congress which permits the shares to be taxed by the States, requires, them to be included “in the valuation of the personal property” of the holder, “in tpe assessment of taxes imposed by or under .State,- authority, at the place where' such bank is located, and-not elsewhere.” * There are other regulations upon the subject, but they do not affeef the point to be considered, and need not to be more particularly adverted to.
The plaintiff in error lived in Boston, and was the owner 'of stock in six National,banks there situated, and the valuation and assessment were there made.
It is pot denied that this was in conformity to the act of Congress, but it is insisted that the taxes assessed were illegal' and void, because the statute of the State requires that they shall be assessed at the place of the residénce of the shareholder, without reference to the locality of the bank.
The only question of Federal jurisdiction,.and of which this court can take cognizance is, whether the plaintiff in eri-or has been deprived of any right, contrary to the act of Congress, upon which he relies for protection.
• The facts bring the case within the terms of the act,-according to the strictest construction which cau be given to .them. This is conclusive of the case. Whether, in another *699 case, arising upon a different'-state of facts; the. statute .¡may not produce results in conflict with the abt of Congress, and-which this court will therefore be bound to revise and correct, is an inquiry upon which we are' not called to enter. We .can' only-consider the statute .-in connection- with the case before us. 'Having ascertained that it has wrought no effect-which the act forbids,.our jurisdiction -i^ at ah.end1: The twenty-fifth section,,of the Judiciary-'Act'is explicit upon the subject.. ..
.The r'ght of taxation,; ,wherp it exista, is necessarily unlimited in its nature. -It carries with if iohefeutly, the power to embarrass and destroy.'
' It is Well settled that the States cannot- exercisp this du-1 thouity in.respect; to any of the, instrumentalities Which the general government may Create, for-the performance pf its .constitutional'functions. It- is equally,well settled, .that this exemption..may be "waived- wholly, or with such limitations and, qualifications/as may be deemed proper, by the láwmaking-power of the nation; /but-the waiver must, be clear; and every well-grounded doubt upónéthe- subject shopld be, resolved in favor of the exemption.
In respect to the elass.of cases to which the ope. before us, belongs, the jvaiver is expressed in.'clear and- Pqmistak'able language,.'
Important questions have arb m as to the construction and 'effect of-the permission given to tax, by'the act of Congress, under consideration, with reference to the-national securities .held' by the banks. - These questions have been settled by this court in repeated decisions. *
In this case, the only question open for our .examination ■ must, for the reasons before stated, be resolved against the plaintiff in error.
Judgment xeeirmed.