20 Ct. Cl. 298 | Ct. Cl. | 1885
delivered the opinion of the court:
The Third National Bank of Chicago becoming insolvent,, the claimant was appointed receiver in November, 1877. When the taxes for the half year ending December 31,1877, became-due, the return required by section 5215 of the Revised Statutes, was not made, and thereupon the Treasurer of the United States, acting under sections 5216 and 5217, made an assessment against the bank, and on the 14th of June, 1879, covered the sum so assessed into the Treasury, against the protest of the- • Comptroller of the Currency. The funds so covered in were-taken by the Treasurer from moneys belonging to the 5 per cent.. redemption fund of the bank. Between December 31,1877, and the date when the money was actually covered in, but after the Treasurer had made the assessment, the act of March 3, 1879*. was passed (20 Stat. L., p. 352). This act contained the following provision:
“ That whenever and after any bank h¿is ceased to do business by reason of insolvency or bankruptcy, no tax shall be assessed, collected, or paid into the Treasury of the United States, on account of such bank, which shall diminish the assets, thereof necessary for the full payment of all its depositors, and. such tax shall be abated from such national banks as are found, by the Comptroller of the Currency to be insolvent.”
In Johnston’s Case (17 C. Cls. R., 157) this court, speaking by-Judge Richardson, held that the act of March 3, 1879, abated
The act of 1879, divested of words not necessary to the consideration of this case, provides that when a bank has stopped ¡business because of insolvency no tax shall be paid into the Treasury which shall diminish the assets “ necessary for the full payment of all its depositors,” and such tax shall be abated from insolvent banks. Uo ambiguity appears in the statute; the taxes not to be paid are those only which shall diminish as.-sets necessary to pay depositors j and the word “ such ” in the •concluding clause relates to the definition of the preceding •clause, that is to those taxes, and to those only, whose payment will diminish the depositors’ fund. This interpretation of the .act has already been, in effect, given it in Johnston’s Case, where the court says (p. 172):
“The act of March 3,1879, now under consideration, was •passed for the undoubted purpose of relieving depositors in national banks from the payment of certain taxes not assessed ¡upon them, but upon the banks of which they are only customers — taxes which, under the pre-existing law, they would in-•direetly be obliged to pay when a bank is so insolvent that all its capital is gone, and it has nothing left with which to pay taxes except the money of its depositors. These semi-annual taxes are assessed against national banks in their corporate •capacity, upon their capital and business, in consideration of the franchise and benefits which the government grants to them, -and for other reasons. They are expected to come out of the ¡profits of the bank, and thus, reducing the dividends of the .-stockholders, they are atax upon the proprietors of the institu-vtion.”
It was clearly the intention of the statute to relieve the innocent customers of the bank, between whom and the govern;ment there Were no relations of tax-payer and tax-receiver, and mot to relieve the owners of the institution from their just liabilities.
In the winding up of this bank the United States had no. right, of priority over other creditors (Cook County National Bank v. The United States, 107 U. S. R. 445), and still less had they a lien upon funds in the hands of the Treasurer there deposited for a specified purpose.
The sum covered in by the Treasurer to pay this tax was taken from the fund described in the act of June 30,1874, as follows:
“Any association organized or to be organized under the provisions of said act, and of the several acts amendatory thereof, shall, at all times, keep and have on deposit in the Treasury of the United States, in lawful money of the United States, a sum equal to five per' centum of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of such circulation, which sum shall be counted as a part of its lawful reserve, as provided in section 2 of this act.”
Section 5214 of the Revised Statutes provides that in the months of January and July every association shall pay to the Treasurer certain duties in lieu of all existing taxes, and section 5215 requires from each association, within ten days from the 1st days of January and July, a return, under the oath of the president or cashier, of certain facts necessary to make the assessment; failing this, the Treasurer is directed by section 5216 to make the assessment, and upon failure to pay he may (by section 5217) collect the sums due in the manner provided for the collection of United States taxes from other corporations, “ or the Treasurer may reserve the amount out of the interest as it may become due on the bonds, deposited with him by such defaulting association.”
No return coming from the bank, the assessment was made by the Treasurer on the 12th January, 1878, after the ten days bad expired, and on the same day he charged it against the 5 per cent, redemption fund. Here we have a technical compliance with the statute as far as the assessment is concerned, but some six weeks before the bank had become insolvent, had passed into the hand of the receiver appointed by the Comptroller, and its president and cashier were no longer in aposi-tiou to fulfill the requirements of the statute. The whole status
It is not necessary to decide how much, if anything, the defendants are entitled to recover for taxes due between July 1, 1877, and November 24,1877, when the receiver was appointed; the United States, having no lien therefor on the fund in the hands of the Treasurer, from which the money was taken, and having no priority over other creditors, must take from the Comptroller (into whose hands any recovery in this action will go), as do other creditors, its pro rata share of the net assets. There is nothing before us by which we can determine what that would be, and therefore, without prejudice to the right of the defendants to receive that sum, should the Comptroller consider the claim proved to his satisfaction, judgment will be entered for the claimant in the sum of $6,362.89.