Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/885

EVANSVIIjLE KAT. BANK V. BEITTON. 871 �taxation. In determining whether the state has made an improper diBcrimination against moneyed capital invested in national bank sharea, we must look to what it has done in reference to those kindg of moneyed capital over which it has complete control for all purposes of taxation. �I corne now to, inquire as to what estent relief can be given to com- plainant by reason of the ruling that the state law establishes a principle which, in its operation, may injuriously affect the rights secured by the act of congress to shareholders in national banks. I say may injuriously affect, because if the complainant's shareholders, at the time of the assessment in question, iiad no indebtedness to others to be deducted from the value of their assessed moneyed capi- tal, in whatever shape that capital, was, it is clear that neither they, nor the bank as their representative, could properly invoke the judg- ment of the court as to the cohstitutionality of the state law, or obtain any injunction for the protection of shareholders who were not, in fact, injured by the assessment. In such a case the question would be wholly abstract, and the court would not consume time in its consideration. The bank, I have already said, had a right to institute this suit for its protection, and, for that purpose, to ascer- tain what shareholders had the right to dispute the validity of the assessment, and, consequently, to demand the full amount of their dividends, without deduction for taxes assessed upon their shares. But the bill does not allege that all the shareholders were in a condi- tion to complain of the assessment. It alleges only that "sundry" or "many" of them had indebtedness which the state law did not permit to be taken into account in the assessment and valuation of their mon- eyed capital invested in national bank shares. The evidence shows only four stockholders to have been in that condition, viz., Samuel Bayard, Frederick A. Preston, John D, Preston, and David J. Mackey. This proof was, no doubt, made for the purpose of illustrating the practical operation of the state law. �In view of the rule established by the state law, I am of opinion that every shareholder of complainant, subject to taxation in this state upon his credits, and who, at the time of the assessment, had debts which were not deducted from his credits, because hehad none, and which were not deducted from the valuation of the bank shares because the state law would not permit that to be done, is entitled, through the complainant, to an injunction against the collection of the taxes assessed upon his shares for the year 1879. The decree can go no further than that. A few days since I addressed a letter ��� �