
    The Mechanics’ and Traders’ Bank, Branch of the State Bank of Ohio, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles Thomas, Treasurer of Hamilton County.
    The decision in the preceding case of Woolsey v. Dodge, again affirmed.
    This case, like the preceding, was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Ohio, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.
    . It originated in the coart of common pleas for. Hamilton, county, and contained an agreed statement of facts similar to that in the preceding ease, with the following exceptions, after stating the profits of the bank as follows, namely: —
    Profits. Tax under § 60.
    From May, 1852, to Nov., 1852, . $4,476.08 . $268.46 • “ Nov., 1852, to May, 1853, . . 5,361.52 . 321.69 “ May, 1853, to Nov., 1853, . .4,860.19. .291.61
    The auditor of Hamilton county listed the bank for taxation as follows: —
    Assessment. Tax.
    September 1,1852, . . $414,088 . -. $6,832.45^. September 1,1853, . . 712,315 . . 13,177.32^.
    The agreed statement of facts contained also the following:— _
    _ If the court shall determine this question in the affirmative, then judgment is to be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the said defendant, for the sum of twenty thousand one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty cents, (20,128,|°0 dols.,) with interest from the twenty-second day1 of March, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-four.
    If the court shall decide the said question in the negative, then judgment is to be entered against the plaintiff for costs.
    It is agreed that all other .questions are waived, and that the judgment to be entered herein, in the court of common pleas, shall be subject to review and reversal as in other cases.
    Mechanics’ and Traders’ Bank,
    By C. E. Nourse, Cashier.
    
    Charles Thomas, Treas. Hamilton Co.
    
    The court of common pleas gave judgment for the defendant, which was affirmed by the supreme court of Ohio.
    • This case i'nvoled a question which did not exist in the preceding one; namely, whether the constitution adopted by Ohio in September, 1851, had any legal effect upon the. contract between the State and the bank contained in the sixtieth section of the Bank Law of February, 1845.
    
      Mr. Stanberry, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Pugh, for the defendant in error,
    considered that all the. questions which arose in this case were fully argued in the' case of Woolsey v. Dodge. Mr. Perry filed a brief for. the plaintiff in error.
   Mr. Justice WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.,'

We find upon the agreed statement of facts in this case, that it is ruled by the decision of the’ court in the cases of the Piqua Branch of .the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 Howard, 369, and that of Dodge v. Woolsey, decided at this term. We therefore reverse the decision of the supreme court of Ohio, and direct a mandate to be issued accordingly. .

Mr. Justice CATRON, Mr. Justice DANIEL, and Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.  