PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK V. KING COUNTY.

433

PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK OF SEATTLE v. KING COUNTY et lIl. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D.
1.

June 30, 1893.)

BANKS AND BANKING-NATIONAL BANKS-TAXATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT -DISCRIMINATION.

Rev. St. § 5219, prohibit<; an adverse discrimination by a local government in the valuation of natiOOlal bank: stock for assessment, as compared with the assessment by the same government for the same year of other moneyed capital.lnvested so as to make a profit from the use thereof as money. true, and matter In avoidance is

11.

EQUITY-PLEADING-DEMURRER TO BILL. On demurrer a bill must be taken 88

not avallable.

In Equity. Suit by the Puget Sound National Bank of Seattle for an injunction to prevent threatened proceedings to en:(orce payment by said bank of state arid county taxes for the year 1891 upotn its c3Jpital stock. Demurrer to bill overruled. Preston, Car & Preston and J. B. Howe, for complainant. John F. Miller, for defendants,
Cited, 88 sustaining the validity of the tax, the following decisions of the United States supreme court: Hepburn v. School Directors, 23 Wall. 480; Mercantile Bankv. City of New York,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826, 121 U. S. 138; Talbott v. Silver Bow Co., 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594, 139 U. S. 438; Palmer v. McMahon, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324,133 U. S. 660.

HANFORD, District Judge. This case, having been argued and submitted upon a demurrer to the bill of complaint, the court· is not called upon at this time to give an opinion upon all questions which have been debated, or do more than decide as to the sufficiency of the bill of oomplaint to support a decree for any part of the relief prayed for, if the averments thereof shall be confessed 01' proven. The bill does e:x:plicitly set forth the fact and the manner of discrimination against shareholders of national bank. snook, in the valuation thereof for assessment, as compared with the assessment for the same year of other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this state, and invested in this state so as to make a profit from the use thereof as money. The right of local governments to tax national Dank stock is given by section 5219, Rev. St. U. S., but with a restrietion against such discrimination as this bill charges. If the facts are as alleged, the disregard of the law in this particular on the part of the assessor and equalizing boards of the county and state renders the tax levied upon national bank stock illegal, and the complain· ant is entitled to protection as prayed. Poople v. Weaver, 100' U. S. 539; Pelton v. Bank, 101 U. S. 143; Cummings v. Bank, ld. 153; Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 706. By alleging the same the complainant has undertJaken to prove these facts, if controverted, and opportunity for doing so should be afforded. The substance of the argument in support of the demurrer is that the bill is,untrue, and that facts in avoidance not been anticiv .57

434

FEDERA:f. REPORTER.

vol. 57.

pated and. . But i:D;.l?lLssfng upop.. the demurrer. the court. is bound to treat the bill afil being true; and the matter in avoidame, to merit attention, needs to be. set forth in an answer. The decisions of. the supreme court of the United States, which are cited as sustaining the validity of the tax, are distinguishable from. this case, in its present state,by the fact that in each the merits were fully presented by the pleadings of both sides, and testimop.y, or by agreed of the fads. It is true that the bill in this case does notparticrularize the discriminations complained of, or specify instances with any greater minuteness than the bill in the case of First Nat; Bank v. County of Ohehalis, 32 Pac. Rep. 1051, in which the supreme court of this state affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendant upon a demurrer to the bill. But it is also true that the bill before me is fully as definite and speoiftc 'in its statements of .the facts constituting' discriminatiori as the bill in the case of Boyer v. Boyer, supra,ln which the supreme oourtof the United States held that an answer should have required,and reversed the decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, sustaining a demurrer to the bill. Demurrer overruled.
OORLISS etat Vi E. W. WALKER CO. et oJ. (Oircuit: Court, D. Massachusetts. August 1, 1893.)
No. 3.152. 1.

o,FBIOG:RAPHy-PPBLIC CHA:RACTERB.

.person who holds hilliselfout lI.8 an inventor, and whose reputation as SUCh becomes world-wlde,ls a pUblic cha.r8.cter, and the publication of his biog-raphy cannot be restrained by InJunction.' Schuyler v. Ourtls, (Sup.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 787, distinguished.
SUfll:-,PUllUCATION OF BIOGRAPHY.

2.

, Aoourt of equity has no jurisdiction of a suit to restraan respondents from 'publishing a biography of complainant, or of a member of complainant's family.

3. SAME-PUBLICATION OF PICTURE-BREAOH OF CONDITIONS.

A of equity should restrain by Injunction the publica1Jlon of a picture of a deceased member of complainant's family, taken from a nndportrait. of deceased, where respondent has not ollserved the c(lndltlons on which the portrait and photograph were obtained.

In Equity. Bill by Emily A. Corliss and others against the E. W. Walker Company and others to restrain respondents from pub. lishing a biography and selling a picture of George H. Corliss. Henry Marsh, Jr., and James M. Ripley, for complainants. W. Fales, for defendants. COLT" Oireuit Judge. This suit is brought by the widow and chilo dren of George H. Corliss 'fo enjoiu the defendants from publishing and selling a biographtcalsketch of Mr. Corliss, and from printing and selling his picture in connection therewith. The bill does not allege'that the publication contains anything scandalous, libelous, or false, or that it affects any right of property, but the relief prayed