Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis
Headline: Bank tax fight narrowed: Court reverses appeals court for lack of authority and holds a bank’s capital stock can be taxed, rejecting an earlier state judgment as a bar to later tax years.
Holding:
- Allows states to tax banks’ capital stock for years beyond prior judgments.
- Prevents prior state judgments from blocking later tax years on the same property.
- Limits appeals: some cases must come directly to the Supreme Court, not to intermediate courts.
Summary
Background
A Tennessee bank and state authorities fought over whether the bank’s charter exempted its capital stock from ad valorem taxation. The dispute produced conflicting state-court rulings and long litigation. The case reached federal courts; diversity of citizenship did not exist, and the Circuit Court’s federal jurisdiction rested only on a constitutional question, while an appeal was also taken to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reasoning
The Court first decided the proper path for review and found the Circuit Court of Appeals lacked authority to decide the matter because the appeal should have come directly to this Court under the Judiciary Act. On the tax question, the Court followed prior decisions holding that the bank’s capital stock was not exempt from ad valorem taxation and explained that Tennessee law treats a prior state judgment as conclusive only for the identical taxes actually litigated. Therefore an earlier Tennessee judgment could not block assessments for other years.
Real world impact
The practical result is that state and local governments may assess taxes on bank capital stock for years not covered by earlier litigation, and banks cannot rely on earlier state rulings to bar later tax years. The decision also clarifies that parties cannot get two separate federal appeals in similar cases and that some appeals must go directly to this Court. The Circuit Court’s decree in one number was affirmed, while the Circuit Court of Appeals’ decree was reversed and its appeal dismissed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?