Show Scprome CoartOecIsidn V I WASHINGTON r May t 2jA decision wed rendered by the Supreme pourf of the United States toHay ii the bank tax case of Hattie Ei 8tanle x executrix plaintiff in erjor agains tbe boardpf sapervisordof 4t Ii tIyY iNew York The original plkiuUtfM this caseEdward HStanlev wa a citien of Illinois aid claims to be the aS9lgneeofcertaiu shareholders fit tbe1 > tiohalAltiUny Exchange Bank Hsbcought jfsnrt fco recover back certafh Jaxes ql leged to have been illegally pollecteatfrom hem upon their bares in that bank dtiri lug tne years xoni 184 to 1879 iacludive and patdiiito the treasury of the Conuty Albany He complained that tne assessors by tbrule prescribed bY themselves assessed shares of the National b any Exchange Bauk at a higher rate than therj stock jn other banK situated in tbe same city This court holds that the method of assessment assess-ment complained of is applied to all banks national andJJtatfffand comes as near as practicable considering the nature of property siacuriug as between be-tween them uqiformity and equality of taxation ifr can not considered as discriminating against ither over the valuation of the property It is not aground a-ground of action At law for excess beyond what should hilTs been leiied upon a just valuation The courts cannot can-not in such cases take upon themselves tha functions of revising equalizing thIS board The judgment of the court below is affirmed S |