Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court
New York Supreme Court
These were kindred cases; -brought up by writ of error from the Court of Appeals of the state of Maryland, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The first case depended upon the constitutionality of a tax imposed by the legislature of Maryland in 1841, it being alleged to bein' violation of a contract made by the legislature in 1821; and, the second depended upon the same circumstance, with .the addition that .the plaintiff in error was-entitled tp the benefit…
Read the full summary
These were kindred cases; -brought up by writ of error from the Court of Appeals of the state of Maryland, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The first case depended upon the constitutionality of a tax imposed by the legislature of Maryland in 1841, it being alleged to bein' violation of a contract made by the legislature in 1821; and, the second depended upon the same circumstance, with .the addition that .the plaintiff in error was-entitled tp the benefit of the same contract, by virtue.of an act of the-General Assembly, passed in 1834. ■ The facts in the case were these:—…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice. WAYNE
delivered the opinion of the court.
• The. question raised in this case by the agreed statement of facts upon the record, is, Does-the act of Maryland of 1841, chap. 23, so fax as.it .imposes-a tax-upon the shares of stock- held by stockholders 'in the ■ Union Bank of Maryland and the other banks mentioned in the statement, impair the obligation of a contract ?
The banks are classified -in .-that statement as the old and the new banks. The old are those which were chartered previous to the" year 1821; the new, those which were chartered .after the year 1830.
Their exemption…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gordon v. Appeal Tax CourtSupreme Court of the United States · 1845