
    Niles v. Shaw, Treasurer.
    
      Taxation—What are credits—What investments—National Bank shares.
    
    Our tax laws do not authorize the deduction from the value of shares in a national hank, entered on the duplicate for taxation, of legal bona fide debts owing by the holder of such shares of stock.
    (Decided May 9, 1893.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county.
    The plaintiffs action was commenced by the filing of a petition in the court of common pleas, as follows:
    “Charles E. Niles, plaintiff above named, says that Oliver P. Shaw, defendant above named, is the county treasurer of said Plancock county, duly elected and qualified and acting as such, and as such treasurer charged with the collection of the taxes upon the grand duplicate of said county.
    “Plaintiff, complaining of said defendant; says that on and before the month of May, A. D. 1890, he was since then, has been, and now is the owner and holder of 275 shares of the capital stock of the First National Bank of Findlay, a banking corporation duly organized under the laws of the United States.
    “That in said month of May, 1890, the cashier of said bank duly made out and returned to the auditor of said county, the reports required by section 2765, of the Revised Statutes.
    “That afterwards such action was had under the provisions of section 2766, of the Revised Statutes, that the valúation of said 275 shares so owned by plain tiff, was fixed at the sum of $26,129.00, and were placed by said auditor upon the tax duplicate of said county for said year 1890, at said valuation for taxation against plaintiff and without notice to him.
    “That at said time plaintiff’s collectible credits amounted to $850.00 and no more, while his bona fide liabilities amounted to $24,000.00, of which sum plaintiff of right, and by the laws of Ohio, was and is entitled to have $23,150.00 deducted from said valuation of said shares, leaving the true amount to be placed upon said duplicate for taxation against this plaintiff at $3,000.00.
    “Yet, notwithstanding the premises, the said auditor wrongfully and unlawfully placed upon said duplicate as aforesaid, for taxation against plaintiff, the said full valuation of $26,129.00.
    “Plaintiff says that the rate of taxation in said city for said year was and is 18.35 mills.
    “That in December, 1890, said defendant treasurer required said bank to pay, and said bank did pay, and said treasurer collected from said bank the taxes upon the shares of the several shareholders and among others the sum of $479.47. being the amount of the December installment of taxes for said year 1890, upon the valuation of plaintiff’s said shares.
    “That the June installment of the said taxes of 1890 is now due and payable, yet the amount of said installment placed upon said duplicate as the tax upon plaintiff's said shares is $453.43, being the tax assessed upon $26,129.00, at the rate of 18.35 mills, while the true amount which plaintiff justly and of right should pay is $52.05, being the full and true amount of tax justly chargeable to plaintiff, and being the tax on said sum of $3,000, the amount properly taxable after deducting said liabilities from said gross valuation of said shares.
    “On the 25th day of July, 1891, this plaintiff presented to said auditor his written statement and demand, duly verified, embodying the facts herein above set forth, claiming that his said liabilities be deducted from said valuation and requesting that said auditor, in compliance with the mandatory provision of section 1038, of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, correct said tax duplicate, and give to plaintiff, to be pre- . sented to said treasurer, a certificate of said erroneous taxes for the sum of $401.29, the amount so erroneously assessed. But the said auditor, notwithstanding the premises, refused to make said correction or give to plaintiff said certificate.
    “Thereupon, and on said day, plaintiff duly tendered to said treasurer the sum of $52.05, in payment of the June installment of the taxes of 1890, so being the true amount justly chargeable as aforesaid, which sum this plaintiff is fully able, ready and willing to pay, and here and now tender the same and brings it into court; yet the said treasurer refused to receive or accept said sum and payment, and threatens to and is about to use his statutory power and by distraint or otherwise enforce the payment of the whole amount of said installment, to-wit, $453.34.
    “Plaintiff thereupon prays that defendant be temporarily restrained from enforcing the collection of said erroneous sum of $401.29, and that upon the final hearing of this cause upon its merits, said injunction be made perpetual, and for ■such other and further relief, etc.”
    In the common pleas a general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the petition dismissed. On appeal by plaintiff to the circuit court a like judgment was there rendered.
    
      A. Blackford and f. A. & E. V. Bope, attorneys for plaintiff in error.
    
      Burket & Burket and John Poe, attorneys for defendant in error.
   By The Court.

We think, the demurrer was properly sustained. Irrespective of the question whether or not in arriving at the correct amount of property subject to taxation, legal, bona fide debts owing by a debtor can be deducted from credits owing to him (considered in Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1, and in Latimer v. Morgan, 6 Ohio St 279), we are of opinion that shares of stock in a national bank are, within the meaning of sections, 2730 and 2731, Revised Statutes, “investments in stocks,” and not “credits,” and that, in determining the amount to be charged on the duplicate for taxation against a stockholder in a national bank, bona fide debts owing by such stockholder cannot be deducted from the value of his shares.

' Judgment affirmed.

Burket, J., not sitting.  