Bellevue Realty, Savings & Trust Co. v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Co.
Bellevue Realty, Savings & Trust Co. v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
In the court below a rule was taken to show cause why a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the entire amount of its claim should not be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
As to a portion of the claim no defense was set up and a judgment for that amount properly followed. . As to the remaining portion of the claim, the court below discharged the rule for judgment and the plaintiff appeals from the order so made. The questions raised by the statement and affidavit of defense are interesting and involve an examination of a number of statutes. The opinion filed by Judge Macearlane discharging the rule appears to us to exhibit convincing reasons why the plaintiff’s case was not of the character to entitle it to a summary judgment.
We are in accord with the conclusion reached, and, generally speaking, with the reasons that support it. It is not necessary to here repeat or elaborate them. The assignments of error are overruled, and the order dis? charging the rule for judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below with a procedendo.
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Taxation — Corporations—Four mills tax — Tax on capital stock —Deduction of tax from, coupons. In an .action by a trust company against a coal company to recover on forty interest coupons for the years 1913, 1914 and 1915, on bonds of the coal company owned by the trust company, an affidavit of defense to a portion of the claim is sufficient, which admits liability of $716, but avers that for the three years in question plaintiff had not paid the tax to the State on its capital stock, that therefore the bonds were not exempt from the State tax of four mills, that when the 1915 coupons were presented for payment, defendant deducted the four mills tax so as to pay it over to the State, that defendant paid the 1913 and 1914 coupons in full without being informed or knowing, or having means of knowing that plaintiff had not paid the taxes due by it on its capital stock to the Commonwealth. In such a case defendant was entitled to deduct the four mills tax on the 1915 coupons and pay it to the State, and was also entitled to reimburse itself out of the fund claimed for the four mills tax on the 1913 and 1914 coupons which it had paid, or was bound to pay to the State.