Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Bank v. Supervisors

• 1868 • 74 U.S. 26 • Chase Court
In Bank v. Supervisors, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a state could tax a national bank. The case arose when the Bank of the United States, a national bank, was assessed a tax by the supervisors of the county in which it was located. The Bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a tax on a federal instrumentality. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on a federal instrumentality....Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Chase Court
Term: 1868
74 U.S. 26
19 L. Ed. 60
1868 U.S. LEXIS 975
Argued: Dec 15, 1868

Bank v. Supervisors

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Bank v. Supervisors, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a state could tax a national bank. The case arose when the Bank of the United States, a national bank, was assessed a tax by the supervisors of the county in which it was located. The Bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a tax on a federal instrumentality. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on a federal instrumentality. The Court reasoned that the Constitution did not give the states the power to tax federal instrumentalities, and that the tax was therefore invalid. The Court also held that the tax was invalid because it was a direct tax, which the Constitution did not allow the states to impose. The Court concluded that the tax was unconstitutional and that the Bank was not liable for it. This decision established the principle that states cannot tax federal instrumentalities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Bank v. Supervisors, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state-chartered bank could be taxed by local governments in addition to being subject to taxation from the federal government. The majority opinion held that such double taxation was permissible under the Constitution and did not violate any of its provisions. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that it would be unfair for banks to have their property taxed twice; secondly, he asserted that such double taxation violated Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contracts between citizens and corporations. He concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress had intended for banks to pay both federal and state taxes then they should have explicitly stated so in legislation rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts or other bodies.

Opinion written by Justice SPChase
Decided: Jan 18, 1869
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms