Mechanics' and Traders' Bank Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Thomas

by James Moore Wayne

United States Supreme Court

59 U.S. 384

Mechanics' and Traders' Bank Branch of the State Bank of Ohio  v.  Thomas

THIS case, like the preceding, was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Ohio, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.

It originated in the court of common pleas for Hamilton county, and contained an agreed statement of facts similar to that in the preceding case, with the following exceptions, after stating the profits of the bank as follows, namely:--

Profits. Tax under § 60.

From May, 1852, to Nov., 1852,. $4,476.08. $268.46

" Nov., 1852, to May, 1853,. 5,361.52. 321.69

" May, 1853, to Nov., 1853,. 4,860.19. 291.61

The auditor of Hamilton county listed the bank for taxation as follows:--

Assessment.Tax.

September 1, 1852,. $414,088. $6,832.45 2/10.

September 1, 1853,. 712,315. 13,177.32 8/10.

The agreed statement of facts contained also the following:--

If the court shall determine this question in the affirmative, then judgment is to be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the said defendant, for the sum of twenty thousand one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty cents, (20,128 30/100 dols.,) with interest from the twenty-second day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-four.

If the court shall decide the said question in the negative, then judgment is to be entered against the plaintiff for costs.

It is agreed that all other questions are waived, and that the judgment to be entered herein, in the court of common pleas, shall be subject to review and reversal as in other cases.

MECHANICS' AND TRADERS' BANK,

By C. E. NOURSE, Cashier.

CHARLES THOMAS, Treas. Hamilton Co.

The court of common pleas gave judgment for the defendant, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Ohio.

This case involved a question which did not exist in the preceding one; namely, whether the constitution adopted by Ohio in September, 1851, had any legal effect upon the contract between the State and the bank contained in the sixtieth section of the Bank Law of February, 1845.

Mr. Stanberry, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Pugh, for the defendant in error, considered that all the questions which arose in this case were fully argued in the case of Woolsey v. Dodge. Mr. Perry filed a brief for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes