Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876

Bank of Greensboro' v. Commissioners of Greensboro'

Bank of Greensboro' v. Commissioners of Greensboro'
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided January 5, 1876 · BoiiMAN
74 N.C. 385

Counsel

Staples, for the appellants , submitted: Does Section 45, of the charter of the city of Greensboro confer (387) upon the defendants authority to tax the capital stock of banks, solvent credits, etc.? The court will carry out the intention of the Legislature, if, by a reasonable and fair construction of the language used, they can consistently do so. To ascertain fully what the meaning of the clause, "On all real and personal property whatever, which may at the same time be subject to taxation by the State," etc., used in the charter, reference should be had to the subjects of taxation specifically set out in the act of the Legislature to "Raise Revenue," and also the act to provide for collection of taxes. See Public Laws, 1874-75, Chapters 184 and 185. Money, solvent credits, bonds, and the capital stock of National, State and private banks are "subjects of taxation" under the State law. See Subdivisions 4, 5, 6, Sec. 9, Chap. 184, Pub. Laws, 1874-75, p. 216. If the charter authorizes the defendants to collect taxes upon stocks, bonds, solvent credits, etc., the act is constitutional. Pullen v. Commissioners of Raleigh , 68 N.C. 451 . The power depends upon the charter. Ibid . It is admitted that a reasonable and fair construction of the charter, taking in consideration therewith the reference made to the specific description contained in the State law, would warrant the court in declaring that the language used in the charter was intended to confer, and does confer upon the defendants the authority claimed. Dillard Gilmer, contra .

Bank of Greensboro' v. Commissioners of Greensboro'

Opinion of the Court

BoiiMAN, J.

Section 43 of tiie charter of tiie city of Greensboro’ authorizes tiie city government to annually levy and collect the following taxes : “ On all real and personal property whatever which may at the same time be subject to taxation by the State, an ad valorem tax not exceeding 25 cents on the $100 valuation.” This limit was afterwards extended *388 by the act of 1874-75, chap. 184. The charter of the bank requires it to give in its stock for taxation. So that if the stock but for this provision would be taxable against the owners, it is taxable against the bank. The opinion delivered at this term in Wilson v. City of Charlotte, declares that stock in a bank is taxable as property. This being the only question made in the case, our opinion is that the judgment be reversed and judgment be given that defendant recover of plaintiff according to the case agreed.

Pee Ookiam. Judgment reversed, and judgment that defendant recover of plaintiff according to case agreed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.