Supreme Court of the United States, 1882

Rosenblatt v. Johnston

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 16, 1882 · Waite

104 U.S. 462; 26 L. Ed. 832; 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2025 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Leverett Bell for the appellant., Mr. J. M. Krum and Mr. O. II. Krum for the appellee.

Cases that cite this one

50 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Roberts v. American National Bank of Pensacola (Fla. 1929)
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. McDonald (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1968)
National Metropolitan Bank of Washington v. The United States (Court of Claims 1965)
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Town of West Haven (Conn. 1948)
Rist v. Hartvigsen (S.D. 1945)
District of Columbia v. Wardell (District Court, District of Columbia 1940)
Hershey v. Anderson (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 1940)
State Tax Commission v. Baltimore National Bank (Md. 1938)
Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian (5th Cir. 1936)
Wittnebel v. Loughman (2d Cir. 1935)
Wittnebel v. Loughman (District Court, S.D. New York 1935)
Twyman McCarthy v. Smith (Fla. 1935)
Loudoun National Bank v. Continental Trust Co. (Va. 1935)
Wilson v. Awalt (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1933)
Clark v. First National Bank (New York Supreme Court 1927)
Altman v. McClintock (District Court, D. Wyoming 1927)
Central Nat. Bank of Topeka v. McFarland (District Court, D. Kansas 1927)
Swords v. Simineo (Mont. 1923)
State ex rel. Rankin v. Madison State Bank (Mont. 1923)
Dennis v. First Nat. Bank (Mont. 1919)
First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Durr (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1917)
State ex rel. First Trust & Savings Bank of Billings v. District Court (Mont. 1915)
Wilson v. First State Bank (Kan. 1908)
Muir v. Citizens National Bank (Wash. 1905)
Gerard v. Duncan (Miss. 1904)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The .single question in this case is, whether the personal assets and personal property of an insolvent national bank in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, in accordance with the provision of sect. 5234 of the" Éevised Statutes, are exempt from taxation under State laws, and we have no hesitation in saying that in our opinion they are. Such property and assets, in legal contemplation, still belong to the bank, though in tfie hands of a receiver, to be' administered under the law. The bank did not cease to exist on the appointment of the receiver. Its corporate capacity continues until its affairs are finally wound up and its assets distributed. ■ Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 id. 498 ; Bank v. Kennedy, 17 id. 19. If the shares have any value, they are taxable in the hands of the holders or owners, under sect. 5219 of the Revised Statutes ; but the property held by the receiver is exempt to the same extent it was before his appointment.

Decree affirmed.

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