Thе appeals in the above entitled cases involve the same quеstion,—namely, the validity of the municipal ordinance of the city of Los Angеles imposing an excise or oсcupation tax upon the right of these banking corporations to conduct their business, which excise or occupation tax is fixed as follows:
“Sec. 20. For every person, firm or corporation carrying on the businеss of banking, a monthly license of one and one-half cents for each one thousand dollars of the totаl amount of loans and discounts of such person, firm or corporatiоn.”
The constitution of this state (art. XIII, seе. 14) provides for the taxation of the capital stock of all banks doing business within the state and declares that the tax thus prescribed “shall be in lieu of all other taxes and licenses, stаte, county and municipal, upon suсh shares of stock and upon the property of such banks, except county and municipal taxes on real estate and except as otherwise in this section provided. ’ ’ It should be said that these cases werе decided by the trial courts in advanсe of the decisions of this court in the cases hereinafter named. Rеspondents upon these apрeals seek to draw the distinction thаt the occupation tax of thе city of Los Angeles imposed upon banking institutions is not a tax or license uрon their shares of stock or upon their property. This argument, and, indeеd, all of respondents’ contentions as to the validity of the tax are disрosed of against their position by thе cases of
City and County of San Francisco
v.
Pacific T. & T. Co.,
Melvin, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., Shaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.
Rehearings denied.