33 Ind. 111 | Ind. | 1870
The only points made in either of the above cases not already decided in Whitney v. Ragsdale, Treasurer, at the present term, ante, p. 107, will be stated as they are ruled.
The counsel have- applied one brief to' the eases, and one ■opinion will therefore be pronounced.
First, the banks were organized under the act of 1868, which did not in terms authorize state taxation. But the act of 1864 repealed the former act, as was provided in the act of 1863 might be done, and continued the existence of the banks already organized under the act of 1868. 2 Brightly’s Digest, 72, sec. 65.
Second, the assessment was placed upon the tax duplicate by the auditor after he had delivered it to the treasurer. It was made the duty of the auditor, by the act of 1867, to place the tax upon the duplicate, and the act does not in terms limit the time within which this may be done. Under the general law, it is made the duty of the treasurer to add omitted names, and we have held that where this duty
Third, the names of stockholders were not returned’ by the bank officer, and the auditor did not, as he was empowered, summon them before him and from them obtain such a statement. Still, as the correctness of the assessment, in-number of shares and amount of tax, is not questioned, a court will not grant the use of an extraordinary remedy issued by a court of equity, to aid the parties in avoiding-an amount equitably and, in our view, legally due. The-third section of the act of 1867, p. 216, authorizes the auditor to make such investigations at the expense of such bank as may enable him to obtain the information required. This does not limit him to an examination of the officers - of the bank.
The objection is made that the owners of stock-would,, under this, be liable to taxation at the point where the bank' is located and under the general law again at their.places of 1 residence. "When the general law was passed,.tliisiclass. of stock was not taxed, and is now only liable to taxation at', the point where the bank is located.
The judgment in the case of Strader et al. v. Manville, Treasurer, is affirmed, with costs.
The judgment in Law et al. v. Manville, Treasurer, is. affirmed, with costs.
In Monroe, Treasurer, by Manville, his successor in office,
The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to ■the court below to set aside all proceedings subsequent to 'the complaint.