Merchants National Bank of Baltimore v. United States

214 U.S. 33, 29 S. Ct. 593, 53 L. Ed. 899, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1891
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 17, 1909
Docket20
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 U.S. 33 (Merchants National Bank of Baltimore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Merchants National Bank of Baltimore v. United States, 214 U.S. 33, 29 S. Ct. 593, 53 L. Ed. 899, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1891 (1909).

Opinion

*38 Mk. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

Organized as a state bank in 1834, the appellant was converted, in June, 1865, into a national banking association! For nearly, thirty years after its organization as a national bank, that is, up to July 1,1904, the bank was assessed for and paid 'the duty of one-half of one per cent upon the average-amount of its notes in circulation, in conformity with § 5214, Rev. Stat. Availing itself of the right conferred by § 5218, Rev! Stat., copied in the'margin, 1 the bank made application to be refunded the sum of $4,713.01, on the ground that in making certain of the half-yearly payments under § 5214 there had been a, miscalculation, and besides, because of án error of law, some of the half-yearly payments had been exacted when the bank was exempt. We put aside so much of the claim as was'based upon mere errors of calculation, as rió contention on that subject is here presented. , ‘

• The alleged error of law or asserted right to exemption rests upon the .assumption that by the operation of § 3411, Rev. , Stat., the bank -was not. liable to pay the half-yearly duty on.' its outstanding circulation wheneverthe amount of its circulation fell below five per cent of its capital, a contingency, which •it-was insisted, had arisen during certain of the half-yearly-periods bétweeri January, 1888, and July, 1904. The request to be refunded having been rejected by the.Treasurér of the . United States, this suit was coinmenced and this appeal was taken from" a judgment in favor of the United States. 42 Ct. Cls. 6. •

' In the argument for the bank it is stated that all-the errors relied-.upon are embraced'in the following propositions: -.

*39 “1. The said court erred in holding and deciding that the claimant, being a national bank, was not exempt from taxation on its notes in circulation during the half-yearly periods when the average amount of its said notes was less than five per centum of-its chartered capital.
■ “ 2. The said court erred in holding and deciding that § 3411,. Revised Statutes, relates solely to the taxation of the outstanding circulating notes of state banks which had ceased to exist or had been converted iñto national banks, and did not limit the claimant’s liability to 'taxation on its own outstanding circulation.”'

Without presently determining whether the right to be refunded, even if otherwise well founded, was without merit because of the voluntary nature of the payments or the effect of the statute of limitations, we come to consider the merits of the contention. It depends upon whether § 5214, Rev. Stat., is limited and controlled by the provisions of § 3411, Rev. Stat. The two sections are as follows":

“Sec. 5214. In lieu of all existing taxes, every association shall pay to the Treasurer' of the United States, in the months of January and July, a duty of one-half of one per centum each half-year upon- the average amount of its notes in circulation, and a duty of one-quarter of one per centum each- half-year/ upon the average amount of its deposits; and a duty of one-quarter ,of one per centum each half-year on the .average amount of 'its capital stock;' beyond the amount invested in United States bonds.!’
“Sec. 3411. Whenever the outstánding circulation of afiy/ bank, association, corporation," company, or person is reduced to ¿n amount not exceeding five pér centum of the Chartered' or declared capital existing at the time the same was issued,said circulátion shall be free from taxation; and whenever any bank which has' ceased to-issue notes for circulation deposits in the Treasury of the United States, in lawful money, the amount of its outstanding circulation, to be redeémed at par, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall *40 prescribe, it shall be: exempt from any tax upon such circulation.”

It is insisted that the sections, considered as' applicable to the same subject, are harmonious, and that giving effect to both, while leaving a national banking association liable to the duty imposed by § 5214, will yet entitle it to the exemption provided in §3411 when the contingency stated'in-that section has come, ;to páss. And as this result, it is' argued, is' clear and free from, all doubt, considering the -text of the two sections, recourse may not be had to legislation:, prior to the Revised Statutes, from which the provisions of the sections were drawn, in Order to arrive at their correct meaning. , Reference to such prior legislation, it is insisted, cannot be resorted to- for the' purpose of creating a doubt, but only to .solve one otherwise arising from the text, citing Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 418; Bate Refrigerating Co, v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 36, and cases cited.

Accurately considering the text of. the two sections and the context of the respective titles of the Revised Statutes in which they are found, we think .the contention that the sections aré free1'from ambiguity and may be harmoniously applied .without the necessity of construction, is without imerit. It is conceded, that forthe more than thirty-five years since the enactment .of the Revised- Statutes, in the administration of-the .national-bank. act, national banking. associations have been required to and have .without question paid the half-yearly duty on circulation, wholly irrespective of the exémption provided.in § 3411, a condition which'clearly suffices, to say the .least, to -engender doubt -as to the. correctness of the belated contention mow. urged. Besides, the sections áre in different titles of the Revised Statutes,- the one •(■§ 3411) Internal Revenue, the other (§ 5214) National Banks. While § 5214 and the other sections contained in' the title in which it is found leave no- doubt that § 5214 was .intended to deal with'the outstanding circulation .of national banks, not only the text of § 3411, but the' other-sections of .the chapter under the general *41 title Internal Revenue in which it is found, cause it to be questionable whether that section is at all. concerned with the subject of the circulating notes of a national banking association. As suggesting doubt and ambiguity concerning the contention that national banking associations are embraced within the enumeration of banks and bankers made in § 3411, whose outstanding circulation would become “free from-taxation” in the specified contingency, it is to be observed that the enumeration conforms generally to that made in other sections of the chapter, which other enumerations clearly relate only to state banks and private bankers. • Indeed, this is strengthened by the fact that in the Revised Statutes associations organized under the national-bank act are distinctively characterized as. national banking associations, and that their designation by that call is explicitly made use of in various sections of. the chapter in which § 3411 appears. In view (a) of the distinct provisions as to the circulating notes of national banks, found in the appropriate title of the Revised Statutes, (b)

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

Related

Ramsey v. Leeper
1933 OK 661 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 U.S. 33, 29 S. Ct. 593, 53 L. Ed. 899, 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-national-bank-of-baltimore-v-united-states-scotus-1909.