Opinion
June Term, 1876.
Taxation — Nonresident Shareholders.
No distinction can be made between resident and nonresident shareholders of the stock of national banks; and the Constitution and our revenue laws require the tax to be levied on all such shares, whether owned by residents or nonresidents, and whether the latter be named or not.
MOTION for an injunction, before Buxton, J., at Chambers, in CUMBERLAND, on 13 November, 1875.
The pleadings and facts of this case are the same as those in the preceding case, between the same parties, with this exception: In this case, the tax complained of was levied under the Revenue Act of 1874, in which the shares of stock in the national banks in this State are not in express terms required to be listed. In all other respects the facts are the same.
His Honor, upon the hearing, granted the injunction upon the plaintiff's giving the bond required by law. From this order the defendants appealed.
(450) Ray for appellants.
MacRae Broadfoot, contra.
The only distinction between this case and the other between the same parties, decided at this Term, ante, 445, is, that the tax here was levied for the year 1874, and the Revenue Act of that year does not in express terms tax the shares of nonresidents in national banks located in this State.
We have decided in the other case that no distinction can be made between resident and nonresident shareholders, and that the Constitution and revenue laws require the tax to be levied upon all shares in national banks, and that the laws equally apply to nonresidents, whether named or not.
For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment below is reversed, and
PER CURIAM. Action dismissed.