
    The Second Muncipality of New Orleans v. The Commercial Bank of New Orleans.
    The thirty seventh section of the Act of 1 April, 1833, incorporating the Commercial Bank of New Orleans, which exempts its capital from the payment of any tax imposed by the State, or any parish, or body politic under its authority, does not exempt from such taxation, slaves, or other real property held by the bank. Nothing is exempted but the three millions of dollars furnished by the stockholders for its operations. „
    Appeal from the Commercial Court of New Orleans, Watts, J. This was an action by the Second Muncipality of New Orleans, to recover taxes due on certain slaves and other real property owned by the Bank. The defendants claimed to be exempt from any liability under the thirty-seventh section of their charters, which delares : “ That the capital of the said Commercial Bank of New Orleans shall be exempt from the payment of any tax imposed by the State, or by any parish or body politic, under the authority of the State, during the continuance of the charter of said company, in consideration of the advantages tobe derived by the public by the accomplishment of the object for which the said company is incorporated.” Act of 1 April, 1833, 1 Sess. Acts, p. 151. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs; and the defendants appealed.
    
      Rawle, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Canon, for the appellants.
   Martin, J.

The Commercial Bank is appellant from a judgment which rejects its pretensions to an exemption from taxation on its real property, under the 37th section of its charter which exempts its capital from taxation. The counsel urges that the First Judge erred in not considering this real property as part of its capital, as it must have been purchased with the money it received from the stockholders directly; or from its debtors to whom that money had been loaned: Th'e First Judge did not err. Nothing is exempted from taxation; but the capital of the bank, to wit; a sum of three millions furnished by the stockholders for its operations. It had no right to withdraw from taxation properly, which, before it acquired it, ivas liable to taxation, in the hands of its former owners.

Judgment affirmed.  