At page 462 cited at this page1 citing case
- Smith v. Sperling, 117 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. Cal. 1953).published So instead of realigning the parties and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court affirmed dismissal of the bill, not on the merits, but for want of equity, “because the appellant shows no standing in a court…
Other citing cases
- Shippee v. Riverside Trust Co., 156 A. 43 (Conn. 1931).published
- In re Feliciana Bank & Trust Co., 78 So. 169 (La. 1918).published
- Stapylton v. Thaggard, 91 F. 93 (5th Cir. 1898).published
v.
Johnston
delivered the opinion of the court.
The .single question in this case is, whether the personal assets and personal property of an insolvent national bank in the hands of a receiver appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency, in accordance with the provision of sect. 5234 of the" Éevised Statutes, are exempt from taxation under State laws, and we have no hesitation in saying that in our opinion they are. Such property and assets, in legal contemplation, still belong to the bank, though in tfie hands of a receiver, to be' administered under the law. The bank did not cease to exist on the appointment of the receiver. Its corporate capacity continues until its affairs are finally wound up and its assets distributed. ■ Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 id. 498 ; Bank v. Kennedy, 17 id. 19. If the shares have any value, they are taxable in the hands of the holders or owners, under sect. 5219 of the Revised Statutes ; but the property held by the receiver is exempt to the same extent it was before his appointment.
Decree affirmed.