United States, or by any officer thereof authorized by law to sue." It is unnecessary to do m9.ffll.,t}}IlIl.fCl;\ll the decisions in which the subject has been fully considered. Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin, 12 Fed. Rep. 395; ,Price v.<'Abbott; H', Fed. ,\Rep.: 506;. A1'1[18trot'lg:',\ Ettlesahn, 36 Fed. Rep. 209i.platt v'IJf!Lch, ·.303; Stanton v. Ben. ;3&1··. See; "':, GibSq#;.,8.';WI1l1. .Yank; 'v'; 17

Wall. 19.

"or

Stat.utes elefl'llly not affe0tew eIther by the provIso contamed p( St. 163.) or, O(th&;lwt of August,l3" 1888,{2.5U. S. St.' at 436.) The ,15, §. /;iQP, ·. ,qfthe diS't11ct 'court 'bver l'$conferrE!d<b'y' tIl e fo.urth· clause of section 563, 'and'tti' ')C}"'u' "ee' ... .. 'bed ,!i,y,',t lill!Wq ... hl"'h j'i.u.;ll.c'" M'on ress ,e.g last referred to. 2. It is also claimed, as I understand, that the demand \bemg;l1gdiNt e$W<tt <:>i!e. the ,probate '" A CQq· to,thia Ite¢tion 199- Qf . Sta.t'utea Q:(,tbe lJt4tl)·Q£'MissmilJ.JiQf pro'llAe&: t1l4l-,t",d,emands ptlr$lil,US;m#iY,beestablisQ.,eti, tQy". above referred to,
IS

.," 'rM

".

.

m,

da,JlQPy,Qf

,iar hf!<11 iJI.tbis;coutt

,

,,f(lr classificntion" inthelmQde, the:statute$,of, As of, the >!l'tattl rl\av.e full jqrJsdiptiQJliof s"'Us.to ... PQ: ,rmson ,is ,flst/l.bliah:qemands. agllimlt the ,estatel'l\ iQfi -peI':¢ciYlldHw,hy a. o{,·)1)e. Sll-,me: J@llm<lter 'may ,,qat ' in the federal courL, and certified for classification in in the state courts...\:; iii

. Aeml»ld'.$ued .fQ\', it is tme tpatn,o can be'''aw"rdfl:d; ,but:tll(l; ¢ij.t: nU:lllt be ·eer;tjijea, tQ the probab;l court

·.

r't',rJ,(:L ti"

;1\/;

L

fin

.i.',

v,

'I ,

':1

·

s:

,i"

i';"

EW,",: »'A,NK

, , ','

f, \: .: \

'>,'"

',Hs",N,

.

",oj:

<',t ."',, ,,, \, .'

WheN s

(C1n"CUJt

JJ I

(!

JalluQry'

2Is,isoo.,."

'I'

I

(ip'T

pn.IlJMta Ilhf/ol'es,s!\d itself from to enjoin collec.tion·of taxes ille·f:,·:gally,wesiJed','as ititan4s·!i1Jth0' retlRiotl of:a trustee, ancilUbh:suit wmsa'Ve .-). t lIoqtion!!. :::"'! ri ..... : r.. .' ' . .:' ' " " ,",
,lilyla.W.¥l

Ol!"

Btnfs"

.

, !laPle JroD:j,. th, . i'lillsl:i8.res;als'pernlltteli 'l:Iy'sct ':' :: ot

at

Pll.Y. W1Xll8;IIP .·s8essed,an(l'.authoriZIng.it :,m p.oSll8S ,tllX, not, tl;J.e bank, llPOJl

sballbe 'assessed' to tbeshare.

that 8 state may determil1e p&ti!l<, ilIoa.tecliiJl.tb.e state;.,

,I." "

WHITNEY NAT. BA'NK 1f. PA::RKJIlR.
8. " ", , " ' " ,,: ' ,".,,' " ,

403

"T

" , An, averment in the b,ill, if 0. celltain"oontention 'ii ttue, which , 'then the said state law[sptlCifyingitlill iln1l'Jal1d void, because it .'0. '! against tlie ,shareholder ot bankp, tn violation press. t.erp1s of" Rev. St. U. S. S 5219, is suffiCiently explicit to raise, the' Issue 'wnether there is in the aCt 'any discrimination priJhibited by'the act of oongniSs.
NATIONAL BANR:S-TAXATfoN OF SHARES-DBtluO'rIdNS.

under Act La, 188S, S 27,relating to taxation,of national deduction for that part of the bank's property entering into theirvo.lue which consists of non-taxable state and national securities, Which deduction may, nnder the , ' act, made )Jr individuals, atu on national bank share,S violates Rtlf. St. U. S. '5 5219, prohibltmg the assessment of such sMres at a greater rate than moneyed capitaHo the hanels of inllividuo.l citizens, and it is immaterial tbat tbe same discriminati,on is made against otl1er ,COrporatioDs. G. INJUWO'fION-!LLEGAL TAXATION-RESTRAINING COLLBQTION Oll' ExOE88. , ", 4 ,D on, of taxe" on, bank-shares" ill s,uch 00.8e,' Wll,1 be grl\Dted only as to the exceSI!, above on other, moneyed' capital in the bands of indi,?dulll citizens, and a be ordered to ascertain the excess.
t i· ,

'XnEquity. Bills for an injunction. .' " ,', " ; , ; Whitek :&under8and E. H. McCaleb, fOT: , Henf"J/ (J.Miller, W.H. Roger8, Atty. Gen., alld<hrktonHwnJ.,City AUy. ,fol"d:efendants·. Bef9re PABDEEand BItLINGS, JJ.
': -, .,,' ,"! ,".,

,These are' suits brougbtto restrain the tax collecting officers Gfthe state of Lolli9ianaand the:dty of New. Orleans from proceedingtocbllect certain taxes assessed against the shl1res in, three ontio,nalpfln(s 011 the ground that they are assessed to thlf'Provisions of law. 'They are prought by iQ.junctionbi»s on ,the eqiiityside of the court.· , .,., . . ' " .,'. '.. ' : . The urged to the complaints is that they are improperly brought otltheequity:side of the court, for the reason that there is a <;otn'plete 'and adequate reniedyst law., . Of course, th('y cannot be maintaIned as equitysujts unless' they present a case whichfalls under s()me one of the recognized heads of equity jurisdiction. .We thirikth'ey preSent case where the bank, charged by· the statute of the state with, the dutyoft>liying: the taxes assessed upon all the shares of its shareholders, is in the Position of a trustee,' and may. ask the sid of a cohrt, of eq uity in 'defending its cestni8qU8tMUt from interferenc.e alleged to be wrongful. Owmming8 v. U.,S. 153,156. We think, also, that the specific ground alleged in :thebill,namely, to avoid a multiplicity of suibJ at .law, is maintained 'by an examination of,the case made ,by the bills.. There are several aspects under .either of which this ground in these cases· is maintainable: Fir8tly, a suit in equity f.>nablesthe complainant tojoio, as it has here, in a single suit, the .officers of the: ,state and ;thos6'of ,the city, whereas at law there would, have to be a ;separate suit:dgainsttheofficers of each; 8eoondly, the decreejnequity .can enjoin all:future:trespasses, whereas a'suit atlllwwould have to be brought for ea.chthr!!:R.telled collectioI1J; thirdly, the corporation, by.brhlging a ,single suit in 'equity,.prevents· the; neoessity of proceedings against eaCh :of .its ;shareh()lderll lat law. W6':think, therefore"that the suit is properly :broughton;<tbe of the court. ..:-

a

&04:

FEDERAL REPORTER;

vol. 41.

bill ,ls(1) that, the tax the bank; and thatit viQlate.stnecondition upon which congress has the states banks, in that the tax is at·a "greater rate than that upon other moneyed capital ip the hands of individual citizens." The part of the statutes of Louisiana under theseqtlestion13' arise are the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth , ' sections of Act 85 of 1888: "Sec. 27; Be itfUl:tber, enacted, " etc. ,"tllat no assessrnentshall hereafter be made under ttiat name'.as the capital stock, of any national bank"s'tate bank, banking company, banking firm, or banking association, or of any corporation, cotnpany, firnr,ol'Qssociation, whose capital stock is represented ,by shares, but the aQtual 06 ass6!lsed to the shareholders who appear as such upon the of not registered Or entered upon the books, and it shall be the duty of the president or other officer to furnish to the assessor a complete list o(those who are b1lrne upon the bqoks as shareholders; ,and llil taxes so asseesed ,shall be paid by the k; company, firm. association, otcorporatioiJ. which shall be entitled to collect ·the 'amounts (rom ,the saareholdersor, their transfel'ees.\:A.1l property,owned by the bank, company. firm, association, or corporation which is this act shall be assessed directly to the);)ank, or corporation. and the pro rata of such direct property taxes, and of all exempt property, proportioned to each share of capital stock, shall be deducted from ,the amount of taxes' asslessedto' that share undel'; this section. 'Suchassessment shall be mllde where, the located, and llotl\lsewhel'e, share,holders rellidethere0r.llot·. Any president of,other .officer orfaH tp,deliver said to, assessor of a anq on shll,Vbe byline or UIipnsonment, or both, at the discretion'i)f the Sec. 28: Be it fur-ther enacted," etc:, "that no as.sessment shaH be made of capital employed in trade under· the name 1IS.heretofoi'e, but, merchandise Of 'other property'talCll'ble'.under section ,one (1) of this act, owned by a.ny person; association. firm, or company whose stock is not .represented; by sha,re,?,shall be assessed to the firm, association, or cpmpany haVing possession of t1)e either in their own ' na111e; or as agent for,., 1I0me either tiaroed person or persons." . ._ . ".'. j:,
i· .'

Th'e'Se sections were originally' passed as .one. Act 1880, No. 77, p. l02,'§,48.The question as to whether the tax is. not lev.ied upon the (lorporation iSi from Hs nature, not free from difficulty. In New Orleam 'V.,.JIdllstmv, 119U. 8.265,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. IPS; the of the United States heIdi Ij;hat: a tax levied tinder l:\ection27 was a tax upon the corporation, and .gave' as the reasOntnat,· acoording to the statute, ,,the tax was to be paid' ,by the corporationil'respecHve ,of out of 1Vhichto make the payment,andwith no meansdof .repayment from ·theshateholder except' by suit. . In Book Y. Bouny, 32 La. Ann. 289, 'our:owh supreme court seems to it Ito:be 's.tax upon the 'ba.nk; for while, onaooount of the charter of that. bank, in' that it/3 div:ideJlds,by the statutej' did not. go to the ,shareholders,but were applied to pay the: bonds issue(hmd loaned by the state to the bank ardts capital,theyheld the tax could not be levied upon the bank, they assume that the section 27 ,if applicable, woulroworkout· the result of at.ax on the bank.: But the' act of congress, permitting the <taring of national bank shares by the states contains a further permission,

WHlTNEY NAT. BANlt,".'PABKER.

"may,de,termine and direct the place' of taxing all the sbares' of national banking associations located within the state." In the case' of New Orleans v. Houston the question was with reference to the meaning of· a constitutional contract which exempted the corporation from all taxes, and whether, without violating it, a tax could be levied under section 27, and, the corporation not being a bank or banking association, the last paragraph of the section had no force in solving the question; whereas in this case the question, though under the same section, is in a very different aspect, namely, whether the permission, to tax the shares has been followed. These considerations, viewed in the light of the adjudications. of the supreme court, lead us to the conclusion that the act of 1888 imposes a tax upollthe shares, and, not upon the corporation, where the question is propounded with reference to the permission given by act of congress to tax the shares.' . , . As 'to' the tax upon the shares isat a greater rate than. other moneyed capital ill' the hands ofindi'vidual citizens, in a cOl1stitutional amendment ratified at thl'l'genetal election ofl888 it is provided cthat-::-, '< shall also be exempt from taxation andlioonse" for a period ot t.wen,ty years from the adoption of the copstituU0n., of 1879, the capital and, m,acliinery and other property in, the manufacture of textile leather, shoes, harness, saddlery, hats, flour, machinery, agricultural impleand furniture and other ments, manufacture of ice, ferJiilizers; and; articles of wood, marble. or stone; soail; stationery,'ink, and paper; boat.' building;; ,and chocolate: provided that not ll'lsS than five hands are employed' in, lI.ny one factory." It appears by the affidavits and exhibits that the capital employed in manufactures exempted under the above-quoted provIsion in the city of New Orleans alone exceeds theam0unt of $10,000,000; that the total national bank capital in the city of New' Orleans is, in round numbers; $3;000,000, and the total capital of all<thebanks,in round numbers, $5,000,000. The reports of the assessors shoW' that in ,the city of New Orleanathe amount of money loaned,eto.,taxable under the laws of.the' 8tate.£Or' the year 1889, is, in round numbers, $0,600,000. ,These figureswould include a large proportion ofthe·manufacturing and banking capital, money at interest, ,throughout the'$tate. On this showing,' there is a discrimination against-capital invested in national bank shares, but whether it is of such a character, or 80 considerable, as to be prohibited by the limitation established by congress, as that limitation has been construed by the supreme court, is doubtful. See Boyer 'v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689,5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 706; Mercantile Bank Case, 1:21U. S. 149,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826. We go on to consider the question whether there is, in the statute un-del' which this tax, is lev-ied, any discrimination which is prohibited by the act of congress. The act of congress is found in section 5219 of the Revised Statutes: .. Seo. 5219. Nothing herein shall prevent all the shares in any association fllom being.included in the valuation of the per80nal property of theowuer or' ,holder of,/iuchshares. in assessing taxes impl'Sed by authQrity of state
i

408
wUhllr whlcli,tM is lloeated;but legislatrireof determine'and direct the mannel"iand place of taxing all the shares of nation" a1, the sta1iej,subjectonlyto the·twol'e,. thetaxatipIl npt beat Ii sa'eater ratl:\' tbll-O is assessed tiporiothllr:mOrieyed. capital in. theba,nus of of such state, a'nd that tbeshares.of any association oWll;ed by of any state shall be taxed io:tb6c1ty or town where the bank is located, and not else·where. NothlngbereiD'shail be construed to exempt the real property of associations from .eithet>etate. oounty, or ttlll nicipal taxes. to the same extent,accordj,ng to its valUedtA other real property is taxed." 13 st. at Large, p. St. p.:l4·

. It was insisted'by the solicitors of the defendants that this ground of complaint, though presented in the is not explicitly made by the bill. We think iUs. :The billavers- . .
"That if said contention is true, which is denit>d, then the said state law. lind void, bt>cause it operates as /( disto-wit, the Act No; 85 crimination sharehQldel'Sof naUonalbanks, in violation of the ex.. terms of sectioll1)21\) j:l,fthQRevised Stl\hltes of the UllitedStates."

The claim on the part of the complainant is that under the ·act of IS88 the discrimination bank$ consists in this, that they aretaxed upona'tvaluanon at by the market vlIJue, without dethe amou.nt Qf owued by the bank 1 ",hereas all moneyed capitalin jthe hands of) the, citizen is by that act reduced by taking. out allexemptpr9perty.National banks are taxed undersection27 .. Moneyedc::apitRl,not' represented by shares, or in the hands of individual citizens, is taxed under section 28. It has been tied by the $UprElnlecourt ortbe.state (Bank .v. Board, 41 La Ann. lSI, 5. Sou.th. Rep. 408) that, statute of 1888, national banks a,reentitled to frollttke, valuations of their· shares, by reason o{ their capital beillg in whole'orpart invested.in anyspeeies of property, .unless .the ,same be.exempkib'othe constitution of 1879; audthie constitution w.ould e'l:empt. DQneof;.the,securities held by these compillinnnts except the shares in manpfaoturing companies. In that ·cas& of.equality of taXation !on·bank-&hares,and moneyed·capiu..Un .the hands pf: iudividualsj,doesnot appear to have been .presented 01 considered. It was admitted.rbv:.the solicitors.·for. the defendants that in case of. be an exemption, under seetion·28, of all Iwnd$ of the United ,States, and of all state and city secu;. rities .Wbich Ulldel'.the state lawame;.exempt. Indeed, it is difficult to S!J6 how, iftbe. tax.is .to De assessed. upon the capital of individuals or Pllrtl1erships in the manner reql.lil;ed:'by, section 28, i.e., not upon the aggregate amount inv(:sted in their business, but upon each item of property ,eaoh security whil'h, is ,by- valid state statute exempt from would not be necessarily,excluded. So far as federal securitieS the th'efact that they can be taxed only in the manner permitted by congress, and congress has: given no permission tp tax; them' directlY.n :So faral! the state and city securities are concerned, the exemption. rests upon the statutory contract of the legislature, :of'the sta.te;' Which' the'supreme court of the United

.has .Ill held was,. undertqe ('.onstitutjon 'of the U nited States, eqactment or CQIl$tjtutiopal proyision· ;i,r!epeala,ble either by .It woul4 follow .t9at, ,so· far as indiv;idua,ls orpaJ;tnerships.,sre concerneq, .'yh,Q. be taxed undl:)r sectjon .28, the securities their capHal, the mO!1t ofthose.,held by complainants, and .constHtltingtheir capital, either wholly or in part, would be exempt. This iE!. theapege!l inequality, wroug4t.otlt by 00888, which. is in the bills of complaint. In this class of and conia meant. by the terms "moneyed the han(:ilu>f indivl9Jlalcitizens, II the supr-eme court hilS been in other ,pltrsonal.property. In Bank v. 105 U. S. they say: . ' .' , Tile I\Ot O,f congress dOllS .not make the tax: on personal, property the. mess,y.r,e of ·the the of tJ;Je, cItizens. ,Credits, money at a,nd ate 'more, of ,moneyedcap1tal tb'an pers\)'nal propetty, so'faras they can sald"to difier. to ;:':' frOID taxa\i,on, : a. ,right, to simila17 exetp becauEje pl;lrsppal ,tnpneyed " ;put rigpijl, c;JjediUl" andrnop.ey, at interest: stat:fJ;om, which tu1J.y ·. all,nWltn moneyed that: :wilY., Bank v. New ,York, ;12J S.149,:7 .. Rep. distinctloa, that.:, ",!hile l;>at;lk ca.n"npt be hIM:(as ()ther persoQl\l ;tpey, Jllay, be indi,wheu; a of fqr: tll,a.t, Jqr ,the purpose applicatj,(lp of tIle Qq.R thing,: an4: ot1:ler persomJ1;property,! another. NoW section: of the . as taxes theID:4iJ3 ·,a.nun!leductedel,elDent intb,at gQes to maketheinnarJ,tet l;>qt" (Il;r; a!l a.H, ,mo!leyed c!tpital held .by .indivi<IU8,1 qemed,by upon the· tllings. Ql' ,whiqp. cpnstitQ.tecapital, the be, AS, pe;rsoQ!,l propnloneyedcapital'lW<f tbusexclQPes· frop;l . . grievance is. thennan-o\V,ed dowll .According to 00888, under 'Which this'f#:lf:.is)evied,all mo..,.,.eyc4 capjtal ernploYl3dill f\ny pusiness inthel;ltate,.Iapt,held in shares, b,y, the of property. Theshllres ,of natipnal.bal)k,sprenot allowed any such exemption is1;psaYf aU- monJeyedcapj,taJ; e.xceptthat:hel.d .by shares ,beJore itis e,xc1uded, Qf. taken. put city ".and: state securities.; valua:tion <If s4e.res in, banks, and all other qap,itaJ h,eJd in ·slHues, isassesaed ,without, There is ehaliea in na.then a maQi{estdiscrhnination,betwElepi the rate tio1111.1 ballksand' indi· . " ' . , ....· ' ." i :;i(' ' '.

.

i

vol. 41. . 'There remains,then, the question whether it makeeany difference subject that the shares irl,tillcorporations other than natidnal to the adversediscrimi1tlation as well. The esta!>. Hshed by congress is moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens, and it is no answer to the objection that the shares ot'other corporations are discriminated against as .well; for it is not shares ill corporations, not moneyed capita'l held by.corporations, but moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens; which is the test. Under the statute of 1888, all 'individuals and partnerships, even those engaged in the business of bank-i'ng,all moneyed ce,pital in the hands of individual citizens, may have "'theexemption which :the statute deniestb national banks. But even if we were to treat the limitation of congress as being other moneyed capi·ta1,':andstrike Qut the words "held by individual citizens," the restriceven then have been violat'ed; for ;it could be maiJ:l"tttined that it bycongf¢ss to subject national banks to a the OOffdlVlduals and partnershIps employed m all branches of. business and trade. But it was urged by the learned solicitors that the suprerrte court 'lof the United States has in several cases decided that fhe shares of a na,tional bank' might bebl:lt:ed withotttany deduction, from the fact that lUI' capital was 'invested in . The answer to this suggestionis that,' while it is true that federal bonds may be indirectly t4txed, though they fom a portion bft1?-ebank's capital, they can be .taxed, only where, they are subject' tOft: similar tax when forming the 'moneyed capitalin theliimdsof individual citizens. It is conceded by '1lbe complainants bondifheld by a national bank are taxable 'as part ofitscapital, -and' are not to 'be deducted unless they would be "in thec!islPof other moneyed capital :eIriployed by individual citizens; l and it is rirgedthat by the statuteCthey are to be deducted in the cases ""Where the capital employed constitutes a large and'considerable portion, if riOt the majority, of the individual citizen's capital employed in his 'business throughoutthe state. The fatal objection is not that the fedor state or city securities'are nbt deducted, but that they are not de'dueted frolIl the shares', are deducted from other moneyed 'capital. Theihequality,; ncitsimply the' omission, of the deduction, 'is cases are cited. They are almost all . the ground of "feferred,to or summarized in Mdcantik Bankv. New York, 121 U. 8.149, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826. ·These cases hold that federal securities may be taxed , aspa.rt of capital, but subjecttO the same 1'ule of equality as other may exempt propert)twithout violating the limitation . ofcorigress the 'taxing. power of the states; that the court will not cConfiidel' the limitation violated when a very inconl:!iderable amount of :propert§ionly was subJectedtoa leSS'rate of taxation; and that the ineprohibited by congress may consist in valuation, providerl, it: worKspracticall)' ,a:discriminating rate of tax. Most of the cases have the question of discrimination between the national banks and other corporatiobs;; ;nithesecases the court has had to resort to analogies or parallelisms, and has sometimes inquired into the, nature of the

NAT. BANK fl. PAllftER.

4Q9

bUsiness of the corporations more favorably dealt with. But, wherever, the question has come before the court as to qiscrimination between the manner of getting at .the valuation of the shares, and the manner ofgetting at the value of moneyed capital actually in the hands of inQh'idua! citizens, the supreme court has simply cOlllpared the two methods, Nld wherever there was a difference which made the tax higher, that is, when the excess was either in the literal rate, or in the .upon the bank-shares. has decided against the tax. 'fche case of Boyer v. Boyer:, ll3 U.S. 689,5 .sup. Ct. Rep. 706, is a forcible of the views of that tribunal. See, also, People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539; felton v. Bank, 10lU. S. 143; .Cummings v. Bank, ld. 153; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305; and.Bankv. Britton, ld..323. In Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U.S. 701, 5 Sup, Ct. .Rep. 712, the court .statesthe principle which harmonizes all these decisions. That principle they state as followli\: "The exemptions in favor of other moneyed capital appear to be of such a substantial character in amount as to take the present case out of the operation of the rule that it is not absolute equality that is contemplated by the act of congress,-a rule which rests upon the ground that exact uniformity or equali ty of.ta;mtion camwt,.in the nature of things, be expected or attained under any Iht as substantial 'equality ill attainable, and is required by the supreme law of the land, in respect of state taxation of national bank shares. when the inequality is so palpable a.'i to show that the-discrimination against capital invested in such shares is seriolls, the courts have no discretion but to ioterfere. " The ground upon which discrimination is established by the act of 1888 is that from the shares of the national banks there is not the proportionate deduction fortbat part of its property entering into their ;market value which consists of non-taxable securities, whereas from· the value of all the moneyed capital in the hands of tM individual citizen it is by the statute deducted. The case is controHed in principle by People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 547. In Van Allen v. ABBeBBors, 3 Wall. 573,581, the court dealt with the question whether an inequality which resulted from the fact that the shares in national banks 1:leing taxed as shares,-and state banks-through .their- capital, was a violation of the limitation imposed by congress which we are considering. . The court held it was, and fortbe reason that the state banks would be favored, in that "the bonds of the. which are exempt from state taxation,"would be deducte4from That is, that the ma.nner of levying the tax, in order to be eqQal, must allow to the national banks, and to thatlUon('lyed capital, which is made the standard, the same right to deduct the am.ount of federal securities. The case by the bills of complaint, founded upon the statute of 1888, is that of a substantial discrimination; for the statute separates, and subjects to one rule of taxation, all moneyed capital not held in shares, and the capital of banks or corporations held in shares to another rule. ,.We are of opinion. then,that there is a discrimination against the shares banks which is prohibited by the act congress, as llrnd ,applied by the United States supreme court. But it does "ot follow .thah because the tax is in excess of what it should have been

liinitation:, established, by'" tlle\'()()ogtess;' thereforethewbole fAifriiityiHe'l:lnjoibed. 'That which is due must be first paid or tendered. This ffulEFhlllfbeeii laid down court. 'StdteRa:ilroad Ta:t ':; i' L< ' i that made the entrUed W:aIiihjunctionagainst:tbe'exeess of taxation resulting from the excessive 'a$!iesstritints' against:thtrilrrespectiye shareholders; 'and' perhaps to the' full extent claimed ih th&bills. A reference will be tbemost satisfactory method 'ofBscertairting thefredhction, by reasOn:of exempt properly held bythil banks; Eacheomplainant is entitled to claim on the valuations 8.lf made by the flSsessors under the views herein expressed; and, unless counsel,agree as to the prot>er reduction 08 the showing already niade, such reference 'Will'lUfbrdered prior to issuing injunction

'tne,

'.'

L SPBOIJ'IO PBRlIOR1U,NCE-REQUIBITEB OJ' CoNTRAOTS-PA.TENTS.

,

Where Ucenses t,q the article, and the l1censee agrees to pay royalty, toniaTre monthly repons of sales, to admit va.and to give its'oo.operation in maintaining the business the under whio4t1;l.;liQanae.islssued, the vatentee,reaerving the power to revoke the license, the cannot be specificilJly enforced, the covg enant' a,s to,,', ,co-opera"tio,nbeln, .too va., go,e'.".and t,he remedy of the patentee, by revo(lithe UCjJWleor action at ' ';, undet'sub'b CQl1traet. will not b!l , , ' ,'i , ( , ;
',,", . , . '

'

" 'A bill for ,an

remec1,y

,

;, In Equity. On.. demurrer to bill.' . The bill in thiS' case aV6nt; in substance, that complainant is the, owner <if Certain wire patetitai'ahd that on or about May 1, 1888, a license to defendant to'n18nufacture andsellcertain styles of btiroed fence wire to the amount of 6',,000 tons per annum; that by the terms 'of the,license defendant agreed to pay a royalty of 15 cents per potirtds'onall fence wiresb' manufactured arid' sold, arid to ·J)ay' the sanle monthly; that the' to makemorithly reports'tO tn.Hicensorofthe number ofpbunds offence wirescild,and alSo of the i1.:ttniber of pounds consigned by'the licensee during the preceding month', of the per.. an'd,'that sueD j reports should' give'tbe ,names' and S'6hs'tO'Wh'omeales had been 'made, and shOUld 'also show in detail the: prices and terms of delivery and payment; tbil.t"tllelicensee also agreed tbadmit the validity of the, ipatentS 'under which the .license was taken" that it would natbJalte orselldunhg the period of the license anybarbed fence wire other than that which it was licensed to make and sell, and that it would cO-operate in properly maintaining the 'barbed-wire bus-