
    The Bank of Chester vs. The Town Council of Chester.
    The charter of the Bank of Chester, passed in December, 1852, provides, “ that no municipal corporation shall tax the capital stock, or pi’ofits of the Bank, without authority first had and obtained from the Legisla- » ture.” By Act of December, 1853, the Town Council of Chester were authorized to impose a tax on a multitude of subjects, amongst them, “ on all stocks of every kind.” Held, that the Town Council could not impose a tax on the capital stock of the Bank of Chester.
    BEFORE WITHERS, J., AT CHESTER, FALL TERM, 1856.
    The report of Ms Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    
      “ The relators moved for a prohibition against the defendants, to restrain them from collecting the sum of $300, assessed upon the capital stock of the Bank, by way of taxation, by the village corporation, within whose limits the Bank transacts its business.
    “ I granted the prohibition; and an appeal is taken from the judgment.
    
      “ The legislation, upon which the question arises, is to the following effect:
    “ In December, 1852, it was enacted that the capital stock of the Bank of Chester, (among others,) “ should be liable to taxation in the same manner as the capital stock and.property of individuals and other corporations; provided, that no municipal corporation shall tax the capital stock or profits of said Banks, without authority first had and obtained from the Legislature.”
    “ In December, 1858, the Town Council of Chester, by an amendatory Act, was empowered to tax a multitude of subjects, touching the present question, in the words following:
    ‘ The Town Council of Chester shall have power to impose an annual tax on all real estate, all stocks in trade, all stocks of every kind, (railroad- and plank-road stocks excepted,) all moneys- loaned at interest, all negroes, all carriages, wagons, borses and mules, kept for private use, and on all gold and silver watches, kept for private use, within the corporate limits of the said town.’ The Act then provides for a maximum rate of such tax, and the ascertainment of the basis of the rate of collection by three assessors, &c. Further, ‘ And the said Town Council shall have power to enforce the payment of all taxes and assessments levied by the said Council against the property and persons of defaulters, to the same extent and in the. same manner as is provided by law for the collection of the general State taxes.’
    “I was led by these considerations:
    1. “The exemption of the stocks of the banking corporation is express, and founded on a reason that affects a grave and general policy of the State, to wit, the abandonment of the policy of receiving a bonus for banking privileges and the release of such corporate property from annual taxation; and the substitution therefor of periodical general taxation as in the case of other property taxed; and I thought this consideration aided the view, that.the power of a village corporation to tax it, against the proviso of the charter, should be express, and not inferential from general words.
    2. “ That people, by the exercise of the power claimed, who did not reside in Chester, but in various and distant parts of the earth, none could tell where, would be made tributary to a mere local interest, in exoneration, pro tanto, of those who sought and enjoyed the corporate franchises; and such a purpose should not be attributed to the Legislature, unless expressly declared.
    3. “ That on general principle, a franchise once granted by the sovereign, in terms express and unambiguous, should be revoked, annulled, or enervated, only by terms equally express and unambiguous.
    4. “That it was doubtful whether the stock, held by various persons in the capital of the Bank of Chester, could be considered as within the corporate limits of the village, merely because they had a house and agent there dealing upon its credit; and hardships might occur upon a stockholder in such Bank who resided in Yorkville, where (if that village had a charter like that of Chester,) his stock might be assessed there, and also in Chester, as well as by the State of South Carolina.
    
      11 Such considerations, operating bn the instant, induced the granting of the prohibition.”
    The defendants appealed, on the ground that the defendants, under their amended charter of 1858, have the power to assess the capital stock of the Bank of Chester.
    Herndon, Patterson, for appellants.
    iPAlily, Gaston, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Whehster, J.

The order made by the judge on circuit, granting the prohibition, is approved by this Court. ■ The views submitted in the brief, furnish an ample vindication of the order. There is certainly a distinction between the capital stock of the Bank and the shares of individual stockholders, denominated bank stock. Looking to the general scope and object of the Acts in question, what stock did the Legislature contemplate in the power conferred upon the Town Council? We should not give such a construction as would subject the same property to be twice charged for the same tax, unless required by express words of the statute, or by necessary implication. 10 Mass. 514. By way of illustration, suppose the stockholders of this Bank all resided within the corporate limits of this town, would it be competent for this municipality to charge the stock when aggregated, with the payment of a tax, and the same stock when separated into shares, with the same tax? First the corporation and then the stockholders. The words, it is said, are large enough to include either, and if so, certainly both, and an ordinance of Council might work this wrong.

The exception is suggestive of the mind of the law maker on this subject, looking, it would seem, to the “stocks of every kind,” as owned by individuals, rather than the corporate or capital stock.

Without this exception, it is not to be questioned, the stockholders of railroads and plank-roads residing within the limits of the town, though, embarked in a great beneficial public enterprise, and sharing hitherto burthens and losses, instead of profit, would have been equally subject to taxation, and yet it is manifest that neither the corporations themselves nor the capital stock, would have been.

The dates of these enactments have been brought to view, and enter into the consideration whether the Legislature so immediately after the guarantee afforded in the charter against any molestation by municipal corporations, without authority first had and obtained, would have likely conferred the power in question.

I think it clear, that the scheme as gathered from the enumeration of property and persons looked exclusively, as it should have done reasonably, to property and persons within the corporate limits of the town.

But the weightier considerations, and doubtless those mainly influencing tbe judgment of tbis Court, as already suggested, are to be found in tbe brief. Tbe motion is refused, and tbe appeal dismissed.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Glover and Mujstro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  