Central Trust Co. v. Treat

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Central Trust Co. v. Treat

171 F. 301, 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4165, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5601

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 10, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 171 F. 301 (Central Trust Co. v. Treat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Trust Co. v. Treat, 171 F. 301, 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4165, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5601 (circtsdny 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circrtit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In view of former decisions in this circuit (Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Treat [C. C.] 116 Fed. 774; Id., 128 Fed. 262, 62 C. C. A. 644) there would be no difficulty in finding that these accumulated undivided profits are either “surplus” or “capital.” In the case cited the plaintiff was a bank engaged solely in a banking business, and presumably all the property that it had was employed in such business. But in the case at bar the plaintiff is not a bank or banker, and, although it does some of the things enumerated in the section as indicative of such business, its principal business seems to be distinctively that of a trust company.

It will be observed that the “capital and surplus,” which is subjected to.the tax, is that which is used or employed by the banker; i. e., in the banking business. The evidence shows that the entire amount of these undivided profits before, during, and at the end of the fiscal year were invested in municipal and railway bonds and in the stocks of corporations, and were not in any sense employed in the business of banking, although the ownership of this large amount of securities available to make good losses in any of the enterprises which the corporation was conducting naturally increased its credit generally.

Counsel may prepare and submit findings in accordance with this decision, whereupon they will be signed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LACOMBE, Circrtit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). In view of former decisions in this circuit (Leather Manufacturers’ Bank v. Treat [C. C.] 116 Fed. 774; Id., 128 Fed. 262, 62 C. C. A. 644) there would be no difficulty in finding that these accumulated undivided profits are either “surplus” or “capital.” In the case cited the plaintiff was a bank engaged solely in a banking business, and presumably all the property that it had was employed in such business. But in the case at bar the plaintiff is not a bank or banker, and, although it does some of the things enumerated in the section as indicative of such business, its principal business seems to be distinctively that of a trust company.

It will be observed that the “capital and surplus,” which is subjected to.the tax, is that which is used or employed by the banker; i. e., in the banking business. The evidence shows that the entire amount of these undivided profits before, during, and at the end of the fiscal year were invested in municipal and railway bonds and in the stocks of corporations, and were not in any sense employed in the business of banking, although the ownership of this large amount of securities available to make good losses in any of the enterprises which the corporation was conducting naturally increased its credit generally.

Counsel may prepare and submit findings in accordance with this decision, whereupon they will be signed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F. 301, 4 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 4165, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-co-v-treat-circtsdny-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack