UNION NAT. BANK OF OlNOINNATl V. MILLER.
UNION NAT. BANK
OF
CINCINNATI V. MILLER, Treasurer of Hamilton COjlnty, Ohio. lit
Circuit Court, 8. D·.Ohio, W. D. March 26,1883.) 1. JURISDIC'I'ION OF SUITS :SYOR AGAINST NATIONAL BANKS-AcT 011' JUJ;.Y 12, 1882-PARTIEB. .
The act of July 12, 1882, to enable national banks to extend their corporate .existence, placed national and other banks, as to their right to sue in the fedetal courts, on the same footing"and consequently a national bank cannot, in virtue a' mere corporate right, sue in SUCh, courts,
2.
SAME..-SUBJECT-MATTER-OASE ARISING. UNJ;>ER AN ACT OF CONGRESS.
.
But national banks may, like other banks, and citizens, sue in such couris, whenever the subject-matter of litigation invo}ves8ome element of fooeral jurisdiction, Thus a suit by a national bank against, a county treasurer. to enjoin 'the collection of an excessive tax upon its personal property, alleged to be made in violation of the act of congress permitting the,state to tax banks, presents a case arising undel' a law of congress, and is, therefore, maiJitainable in: jL, fedm'al.court,.,' '
In Equity.
Demurrer to the jurisdiction.'
Perry Jenney and Stallo et Kittredge, for comphiinant. Otway J. Cosgrave, Co. SoL, and Foraker Black, for defendant.
BAXTER, J. The complainant, a national bank, seeks by its bill <in t,bis case to enjoin,the collection of an excessive tax its personal property. Both parties are citizens of Ohio. The defendant, by demurrer,den:ies the jurisdictiou of this court. The con· stitutional authority of congress to provide for the organization of nationa.lbanks to aid the government in its financial operations, and to clothe them with the right to sue iIi the federal courts, hasheen too long recognized and sustained to be now questioned.Suoh j urisdiction is expressly given by sub-section 10 of section 629 of the Revised Statutes. But section 4 of the act of July 12, 1882, entitled "An act to enable national banking associations to extend their cor· porate existence, and for other purposes," provides "that the jurisdiction of suits hereafter brought by or against auy association, established under any law providinK for national banking associations, · lit lit shall be the same as, and not other than, the jurisdiction for suits by or against banks not organized under any law of the United States, which do or might do banking business where Buch nationa;l banking associations may be doing business when such suits may be begun." ' 'fhe effect of this last act is to place national and other banks, in .Reported by J, C. Harper, Esq" of the Cincinnati bar.
704:
FEDERAL REPORTER.
respect to their right to sue in the federal courts, on the same foot· ing. It follows that a national bank cannot, in virtue of any corporate right, sue in a federal court. But, like other banks, and citiizens, it may thus sue whenever the subject-matter of litigation involves some element of federal jurisdiction of which a federal court may, under the law, take judicial cognizance. Such an element, I think, exists in this case. The state could not tax complainant at all without congressional permission. This permission is given by section 5219 of the Revised Statutes. But the authority to tax is coupled with the limitation that the taxation of national banks shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the state. The complainant alleges a violation of this ack The allegation necessarily involves the validity and construction thereof, and therefore presents a case arising under a law of congress. If so, this court has jurisdiction Qf the suit under and in virtue of the act of March 8,1875. Defendant's demurrer is overruled, and he will be allowed 20 days in which to answer.
UNITED STATES
ex rel.
HARSHMAN
v.
(JaUNTY COURT OF KNOX (JOUNTY.-
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Missouri. March 23, 1883.) 1. MUNICIPAL BONDs-RECITALS THEREIN-MANDAMUS.
Suit was brought upon certain county bonds which recited upon their face that they had been issued under the provisions of the charter of a railroad company. The petition stated that they had been issued under the provisions of the General8tatutes of the state. The bonds were duly filed in the case, and judgment was obtained by default. Mandamus proceedings were thereupon instituted to enforce the judgment, ll:nd an alternative writ was commanding the county court to levy a special tax 8ufficient to pay it. Under the laws of the state it was the duty of the county court to levy such a tax, where the bonds were issued as alleged in the petition, but they could only levy a tax of one-twentieth of 1 per cent. per annum, where they were issued as recited in said bonds. The return to the writ stated that the bonds had been issued under the eharter of the railroad company, and that the lawful taxes had been levied. Upon motion to quash the return, held, that the bonds were a part of the record for the purpose of determining the measure of taxation to be enforced, and that the presumption was that the recitals therein were true, in the absence of evidence that such recitals were the result of mistake or inadvertence. 2. SAME-POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS OVER STATE OFFICERS.
In such proceedings federal courts can only require state officers to entoree state Jaws. 'Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. Reversed. See 7 Sup. ct. Rep. 117l.
