Oil City v. Oil City Trust Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for license tax against state banks.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for license tax against state banks. The facts appear by the opinion of the court below entering judgment on reserved point, as follows, by Taylor, P. J.: “ Under the evidence the jury were instructed to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, subject to the question of law reserved, to wit: Whether the defendant, having elected to and paid the state tax of six mills upon their capital stock, was not exempt thereby from the payment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The learned judge rightly held that the test of the charge in controversy was whether it was a license fee under the po*457lice power, or a tax for revenue. On its face it purports to be a license fee on the occupation of banking, and though we may suppose it was not imposed without an eye to the increase of revenue, yet its good faith and the reasonableness of its amount are not questioned here, and the presumption therefore is that it is what it professes to be: Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 445.
The appellant argues that banks are not specially subjects of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
3Cited by25 opinions
- McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- City of Pittsburgh v. Allegheny Valley BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Dufour v. MaizeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Commonwealth v. GrossmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Jasnowski v. Board of AssessorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.