First Nat. Bank v. City of Covington

Citations

• 129 F. 792
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5251

Syllabus

<p>L Res Judicata — Questions Concluded by Judgment — Subsequent Suit on Different Cause of Action.</p> <p>Under the rule of the federal courts, a decision by the highest court of a state that the acceptance by a bank of a statute imposing taxes created a contract with the state by which the bank was exempt from local taxation during the term of its charter renders such question res judicata between the parties to the suit, and it cannot be again litigated between them in a subsequent suit, although it is on a different cause of action, arising under a law subsequently passed.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The fact that the judgment of a court might have been based upon a ground other than that on which it was actually based does not prevent the determination that such ground existed from being conclusive in a subsequent suit between the same parties, if its existence was in issue in the former suit, and properly formed the basis of the judgment therein.</p> <p>3. Same — Federal Courts — Following Rule of State Courts.</p> <p>Although a judgment of a state court would render a question res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties, under the rule of the federal courts, yet a federal court will not give it such effect where it would not be an estoppel under the rule of the highest court of the state.</p> <p>4. Taxation — National Banks — Kentucky Statutes.</p> <p>Act Ky. March 21, 1900 (Acts 1900, p. 65, c. 23), providing for the taxation of shares of national banks, is valid and enforceable, as applied to taxes for subsequent years, and a bank is not exempted from its operation because of its acceptance of the provisions of the Hewitt act of 1886 (Acts 1885-86, p. 140, c. 1233), which, as has been authoritatively determined, did not create an irrevocable contract with the state.</p> <p>IT 1. See Judgment, vol. 30, Cent. Dig. § 1508.</p> <p>IT 3. Gonclusiveness of judgments between federal and state courts, see notes to Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Morgan