Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/266

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

254 TEDEBAL BBPORTEB. �ments to be retained from their dividends, but that prior to the commencement of this action a considerable number of the shareholders filed tbeir protest and forbade the coraplain- ant to pay over the amounts or to retain them for the purpose of paying the tax. The statute imposes a duty on the com- plainant in the nature of a trust, but which it can only dis- charge at the peril of being subjected to numerous suits at the hands of those whose money it retains. As is said in the similiar case of Cumminga v.. Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 167, "it holds a trust relation which authorizes a court of equity to see that it is protected in the exercise of the duties pertaining to it. To prevent multiplicity of suits, equity may interfere." �It is true the statute in terms does not require the bank to pay the taxes asseesed against its shareholders, but by neces- sary implication it authorizes the bank to do so, and thus brings the case precisely within the f acts of Cummings v. Nat. Bank. That case must be regarded as a decisive authority against the objections urged here to the right of the com- plainant to the relief demanded. �A decree is ordered for the complp.inant. ���Stanley v. Board op Sup'rs of Albany County. (Circuit Court, N. D. New York. , 1880.) �1. JUBIBDICTION OP ClBCUIT COUBT — SUIT B Y ASSIGNEE — ACTOFMAKOE �3, 1875 — Under the act of March 3, 1875, no circuit court canas- Bume jurisdiction of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills of ex- change, even in cases where no plea has been interposed to the juris- diction, nor objection taken to the jurisdiction either upon the trial or argument. — [Ed. Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148. �Wallacb, d. J. The complaint in this action must be dis- missed because the court has no jurisdiction of the contro- versy it diseloses. The action is for money had and received, ����