directly to the point of the dangerous character of the obstruction, and of negligence on the part of defendant. Order affirmed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RICE COUNTY vs. CITIZENS' NATIONAL BANK OF FARIBAULT. January 17, 1877. Constitution-Equality of Taxation.-In the exposition of tax laws under our state constitution, which requires equality and uniformity in the imposition of taxes upon property, upon a cash valuation, such a construction must be adopted as will avoid duplicate taxation, unless a contrary interpretation is compelled by some express provision or necessary implication of the statute. Taxation-Banking-house of National Bank.—Under Laws 1874, c. 1, the banking office and lot, lawfully owned and occupied as its place of business by a national bank created under the laws of congress, is not liable to assessment and taxation as real estate eo nomine against the bank. In proceedings under the tax law of 1874, to enforce the payment of delinquent taxes in Rice county, the defendant. interposed a defence to the tax assessed upon its bankinghouse in the city of Faribault, and returned as delinquent. In its answer the defendant averred that it was a national bank, organized under the act of congress; that the real estate in question consisted of land which was purchased, and a building thereon which was erected, with money forming part of defendant's capital stock, for its immediate accommodation in the transaction of its business; that such land and building thereupon became and are a part of the defendant's capital stock, included in the 800 shares into which such capital stock is divided; that all said shares were assessed and taxed, in 1874, to the holders thereof, at their full value in money, without deduction of the value of such real estate therefrom, and all the taxes as assessed on such shares were duly and fully paid; and that the taxes in question, which were assessed in 1874 on the before-mentioned real estate, were assessed on property which had already been duly assessed and taxed at its par value, for the same year, and the taxes on which had been fully paid. At the trial in the district court for Rice county, before Lord, J., it was agreed that the facts were as stated in the answer, and the court made a decision, pro forma sustaining the assessment and tax, and, upon defendant's request, certified the case to this court, under Laws 1874, c. 1, § 120. Gordon E. Cole, for defendant. Geo. P. Wilson, Attorney General, and Geo. N. Baxter, for plaintiff, cited Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 583; Bradley v. People, 4 Wall. 459; People v. Commissioners, 4 Wall. 244; Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Union Nat. Bank v. City of Chicago, 3 Biss. 82; Frazer v. Seibern, 16 Ohio St. 614.1 CORNELL, J. Is real property, lawfully owned and used as a place for the transaction of its business by a bank created and existing under the national banking law, taxable eo nomine against the bank, under Laws 1874, c. 1, it being conceded that the specific provisions of that statute require the assessment and taxation of all the shares comprising the entire capital stock of the association in the name of the respective shareholders, and at their actual cash value, without any deduction on account of the real property so held by the bank, and in which a portion of its capital is invested? This is the sole question for consideration in this case, and its determination depends upon the character and effect of that statute. The general policy of the law is to avoid duplicate taxation. No one subject of taxation ought to be required to contribute more than once to the same public burden, while other subjects of taxation, belonging to the same class, are required to contribute but once. In the exposition of any tax law, therefore, a construction leading to any such result should be avoided, unless the cogency of some express provision or unavoidable implication of the statute compels its adoption. Says Judge Cooley, in his valuable treatise on the law of taxation: "It is a fundamental maxim in taxation that the same property shall not be subject to a double tax payable by the same party, either directly or indirectly; and, when it is once decided that any kind or class of property is liable to be taxed under one provision of the statute, it has been held to follow, as a legal conclusion, that the legislature could not have intended the same property should be subject to another tax, though there may be general words in the law which would seem to imply that it may be taxed a second time." Cooley on Taxation, 165, and authorities cited in the notes. Especially should this rule obtain in the courts of a state whose constitution contains an express provision requiring equality and uniformity in the imposition of taxes upon property, according to a cash valuation. The aggregate capital stock of any corporation is but the representative of its entire property, including the corporate franchise, and the actual cash value of the former depends wholly upon the productive character and real cash value of the latter. Intrinsically it possesses no value, and can have none, as separate and distinct from the corporate property it represents; nor is the property, character, or value of such stock increased, or in any way affected, by its division into a given number of shares, unless the proposition be conceded that all the parts are greater or less than the whole. Each share but represents a proportional interest in the corporate property, determined by the exact ratio existing between it and the entire stock, and it possesses a like corresponding value. Sever the connection between the stock and the shares comprising it, on the one hand, and the corporation and its property, on the other, and nothing remains to the former but a mere shadow, to which no real property or commercial value can be imparted by any legislative device whatever. The authorities bearing upon these propositions are very fully collated and cited by Judge Cooley, in his work on taxation, pages 164 and 166, inclusive, and the notes appended thereto, although no authority would seem necessary to establish their correctness. Any legislation, therefore, which requires, for the purpose of taxation, an ad valorem assessment of all the shares of stock in a bank, as property, without allowing any deduction on account of the value imparted to them as the representatives of the corporate property and franchise of the bank, and also a like assessment of the corporate property itself under its own proper designation, necessarily provides for double taxation, and, in order to give the statute under consideration that effect, it must clearly appear to have been intended by some express provision or necessary implication. The law under consideration (Laws 1874, c. 1) contains specific provisions for listing and assessing the property of every incorporated and unincorporated company or association, (§ 28,) and of "every bank, whether of issue or deposit, (other than a national bank,)" and of "every banker, broker, or stock-jobber." § 29. It is not disputed that these specific provisions are so far exclusive in their character that other clauses of the statute, relating generally to the assessment and taxation of real and personal property, can have no application whatever to cases clearly falling within the purview of these sections, unless made applicable by express reference or necessary implication; and, that there might be no doubt as to the legislative intent, it is expressly declared that the taxation of banking corporations "is specifically provided for in this act." § 28. That the phrase, banking corporations," as here used, is to be understood as including not only every corporate body doing a general banking business, whether under state or national authority, but also all property employed in bank 66 ing, whether owned by corporations or individuals, is evident from the sections immediately following the one containing this declaration of legislative intent. Section 29 in terms relates to banks created under state authority, to private bankers, and to property employed in banking by both, while the exception from its provisions of national banks shows the latter to have been in the mind of the legislature while framing the provisions of the statute. Sections 30 to 34, inclusive, refer exclusively and particularly to these institutions, and their duties in respect to the matter of taxation; and no good reason is perceived why these provisions are not to be treated as covering the whole subject of taxation, as affects them, their property, or stockholders. It is made the duty of each national bank to furnish to the assessor a full and correct list of all its stockholders, with the number of shares held by each; and such shares are required to be assessed and taxed at the locality of the bank, upon their value, subject to the sole restriction that such taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other capital or property in the hands of individuals. This clearly indicates that such value is to be ascertained with reference to the actual amount and productive character of the entire corporate property and franchise, represented by the aggregate number of shares, and without any deduction on account of any portion of the capital of the corporation being invested in real estate, or property exempt from taxation. Full and adequate provision is also made for enforcing the payment of every such tax, through the instrumentality of the bank, upon which the duty is imposed to retain the amount out of the dividends due to the respective stockholders. It is obvious from these provisions that the entire corporate property and franchises of these institutions are subjected to assessment and taxation once in respect to every public burden or matter of taxation. This is manifestly just, as respects both the state and the stockholders of the |