London & San Francisco Bank v. Block

Citations

• 117 F. 900
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5148

Syllabus

<p>1. Taxation—Franchises.</p> <p>Const. Cal. art. 13, § 1, declares that all property in the state not exempt under the laws of the United States shall be taxed in proportion to its value, and that the word “property,” as there used, shall include, inter alia, franchises. Pol. Code Cal. § 3617, declares that the term “property” shall include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, franchises, and all other matters and things capable of private ownership. Held, that while the franchise of a foreign banking corporation, engaged in business in California, “to be” a corporation, was not taxable as a franchise, under such statutes,, the corporation’s franchise “to do business” in such state was taxable.</p> <p>9. Same.</p> <p>A foreign banking corporation’s right to do business in the state of California is taxable, under Const, art. 12, §' 15, declaring that no corporation organized without the limits of the state shall be allowed to transact business within the state on more favorable conditions than are prescribed by law to similar corporations organized under the laws of the state.</p> <p>8. Same—Branch Banks—Credits—Location.</p> <p>A credit found on the books of a branch of a foreign banking company located in San Francisco, which was created by drawing drafts on the bank’s main office, in London,—the drawer residing in New York,—was not a credit originating in the state of California, and was therefore not taxable to complainant in that state.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Where complainant maintained branch banks in San Francisco, Portland, Or., and Tacoma, Wash., credits on the books of its San Francisco office, consisting of sums debited to its branches in Portland and Tacoma, representing money drawn by such branch banks from the San Francisco branch, were credits arising in the state of California, and taxable therein.</p>