U.S. Supreme Court
Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Purdy, 231 U.S. 373 (1913)
Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Purdy
Argued December 4, 5, 1912
Decided December 1, 1913
231 U.S. 373
The provisions in the tax law of New York, c. 62, Laws of 1909, imposing a flat rate on shares of all banks, both state and national, without the right of exemption in case of indebtedness of the owners, does not discriminate against national banks, and is not invalid under § 5219, Rev.Stat. People v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, distinguished. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, followed as to what constitutes moneyed capital within the meaning of § 5219, Rev.Stat. The state is not obliged to apply the same system to the taxation of national banks that it use in the taxation of other property, provided no injustice, inequality, or unfriendly discrimination is inflicted upon them. Bridgeport Sangs Bank. v. Feitner, 191 N.Y. 88, approved. The federal courts will not overthrow a system of state taxation as discriminatory against national banks under § 5219, Rev.Stat., unless such discrimination is affirmatively shown.
Section 5219, Rev.Stat., deal with shareholders of national banks as a class, and not as individuals, and a scheme of taxation that is fair to the class will not be held invalid because of a particular case arising from circumstances personal to the individual affected.
18 N.Y. 503 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the validity of certain taxes imposed by the taxing officers of New York City upon shares of stock in national banks located in that city and which shares were owned by nonresidents of New York, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary