City of Bowling Green v. Barclay, Potter & Co.
City of Bowling Green v. Barclay, Potter & Co.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 1 .of article 2 of chapter 92, General Stat
As the rate of taxation had been fixed by some of the charters of the State banks, and to avoid the questions that might arise as to the legislative power with reference to these banks, section 4 of the act provided: “That each of the banks, institutions or corporations, by its proper corporate authority, with the consent of a majority in interest of a quorum of its stockholders at a regular or called meeting, may give its consent to the levying of said tax, and agree to pay the same as herein provided, and to waive and release all right under the act of Congress, or under the charters of the State banks, to a different mode or smaller rate of taxation, which consent to and with the State of Kentucky shall be evidenced by writing, under the seal of such bank, and delivered to the Governor of this Commonwealth, and upon such agreement and consent being delivered, and in considera
Barclay, Potter & Co., in the town of Bowling-Green, have a private institution, or it may be termed a private bank to distinguish it ‘from an incorporated institution, in which they receive deposits of money, loan and discount paper. It has a large capital stock, and has, in financial circles, a higher position as a moneyed institution than that controlled or owned by the ordinary broker. They have been paying taxes, State, county and municipal, until the Auditor demanded payment into the Treasury, as required by the act in question, and the appellees, having elected to pay the tax as provided, claim that they are, therefore, exempt from all other taxation, State, county and municipal. The appellant, the city of Bowling-Green, contends that such private banks or institutions were not embraced by the provisions of the act, and that such was not the legislative purpose. The court below held that, having paid to the Auditor the amount of tax required by the statute applicable to banks who had accepted its provisions, the bank was not, therefore, liable to pay city taxes. It seems to us the court below placed a construction on the provisions of the act contrary to the legislative meaning; and while there may be trouble in ascertaining what meaning the Legislature intended to be given the words and other institutions of loan or discount, having already designated banks, State and national, still it is apparent the law-making power was dealing with institutions
The second section of the act imposing this tax on banks, &c., makes the cashier and his sureties liable for the amount of tax and twenty per cent, on the amount upon the failure to pay. A private bank seldom has a cashier who executes a bond with surety, because it is generally run or owned by a few men of capital, who either run the bank themselves or are willing to confide in others without this bond.
Judgment reversed, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.