L. ed. 150, 158, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. Congress has the power to judge for itself what fiscal agencies the government needs, and its decision of that question is not open to judicial review. Congress may create, in its discretion, as in this instance it has created, moneyed institutions to serve as fiscal agents of the government, and also to provide a market, as stated in the act, for United States bonds. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. ed. 204; First Nat. Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416, 61 L. ed. 1233, L.R.A.1918C, 283, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 1169; Hamilton's Opinion as to Constitutionality of Banks of United States, Feb. 23, 1791, 3 Hamilton's Works, 445, 477-479; Story, Const. §§ 1259-1271; Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 33, 34, 3 L. ed. 196, 198, 199; Mercantile Nat. Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 154, 30 L. ed. 895, 901, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 283, 40 L. ed. 700, 701, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 229, 47 L. ed. 452, 456, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 288, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 522; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 537, 538, 20 L. ed. 287, 307, 308; Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S. 445, 28 L. ed. 213, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 549, 19 L. ed. 488. Congress may protect the securities created under its legislation from impairment or destruction, by making them exempt from taxation. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 432, 433, 4 L. ed. 607, 608; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 862, 6 L. ed. 233; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 620, 17 L. ed. 451; Bank of New York v. New York County (New York ex rel. Bank of New York v. New York County) 7 Wall. 26, 19 L. ed. 60; Thomson v. Union P. R. Co. 9 Wall. 579, 591, 19 L. ed. 792, 798; First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353, 362, 19 L. ed. 701, 703; Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 37, 38, 21 L. ed. 787, 793, 794; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 41, 32 L. ed. 150, 157, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co. 154 U. S. 413, 416, 417, 38 L. ed. 10281030, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 575, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1060; Central P. R. Co. v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 125, 40 L. ed. 903, 914, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 766; Rosenblatt v. Johnston, 104 U. S. 462, 26 L. ed. 832; Mercantile Nat. Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 154, 30 L. ed. 895, 901, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 440, 35 L. ed. 210, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; New York v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 543, 25 L. ed. 705, 706; Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 283, 40 L. ed. 700, 701, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 43 L. ed. 850, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; First Nat. Bank v. Albright, 208 U. S. 548, 552, 553, 52 L. ed. 614, 616, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 135, 58 L. ed. 147, 155, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; Farmers' & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, 58 L. ed. 706, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 59 L. ed. 234, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430, 19 L. ed. 495; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 24 L. ed. 558; Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 718, 719, 25 L. ed. 496, 501; United States v. Central P. R. Co. 118 U. S. 235, 238, 30 L. ed. 173, 174, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1038. Mr. W. W. Willoughby filed a separate brief for appellee, the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, Kansas: The distinction between primary and incidental powers is not, constitutionally, quantitative in character. McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 49 L. ed. 78, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Re Kollock, 165 U. S. 536, 41 L. ed. 816, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 739, 6 L. ed. 204; First Nat. Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416, 61 L. ed. 1233, L.R.A. 1918C, 283, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 1169. Mr. George W. Wickersham also argued the cause, and, with Mr. W. G. McAdoo, filed a brief for appellees: The burden is upon appellant to establish the unconstitutionality of the Farm Loan Act beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. ex rel. O'Hara v. Smith, 4 Binn. 123; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 3 L. ed. 162; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 531, 20 L. ed. 287, 305. Appellant's attack on the constitutionality of the Farm Loan Act is based upon the erroneous hypothesis that the banks provided for in it are private institutions, established for a private purpose. This fallacy runs throughout his argument. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. ed. 204. The farm loan banks of both classes are banking instrumentalities lawfully created by Congress for a public purpose; namely, that of facilitating the fiscal operations of the government. They are designed to relieve the national banks from the demands of long-time agricultural credits. The operations of the banks have an influence upon public credit scarcely less important to the fiscal operations of the government than that which led to the creation of the United States banks and the national banks. corporate instrumentalities adapted to or created for the purpose. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L. ed. 579, 605; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 860, 6 L. ed. 204, 233; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 153 U. S. 525-529, 38 L. ed. 808-810, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891; Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 23 L.. ed. 196; Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 40 L. ed. 700, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 502; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 43 L. ed. 850, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 47 L. ed. 452, 23 Sup.. Ct. Rep. 288, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 522; First Nat. Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416, 61 L. ed. 1233, L.R.A.1198C, 283, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 1169. Enc. Britannica, 11th ed. title Bank; Morse, Banks, 5th ed. §§ 2-4; Dunbar, Theory & History of Banking, pp. 2-9; 2 Hamilton's Works, Lodge's ed. p. 47; 3 Hamilton's Works, pp. 36-39, 99, 106, 125, 135, 137, 161, 162; 1 Sumner, History of Banking, pp. 28-30; M'Culloch v. The provisions exempting from taxaMaryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; tion, state or Federal, the mortgages exOsborn v. Bank of United States, 9 ecuted to Federal land banks or joint Wheat. 738, 6 L. ed. 204; Legal Tender stock land banks, and farm loan bonds Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 20 L. ed. 287; Farm-issued by either class of banks under the ers' & M. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 23 L. ed. 196; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 43 L. ed. 850, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 47 L. ed. 452, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 288, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 522. The general purposes of the Farm Loan Act might have been attained by Congress through the direct exercise of the powers of taxation and borrowing. Miller, Const. p. 230; Story, Const. $$ 907-909, 922, 924, 925, 975-978; Willoughby, Const. §§ 263, 268, 269; Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson) 112 U. S. 580, 28 L. ed. 798, 5 Sup. Ct. 247; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 49 L. ed. 78, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 169, 55 L. ed. 389, 420, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Cooley, Const. Lim. pp. 184, 185; Brodhead v. Milwaukee, 19 Wis. 624, 88 Am. Dec. 711; United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. 160 U. S. 668, 40 L. ed. 576, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Legal Tender Case, 110 U. S. 421, 28 L ed. 204, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401, 4 L. ed. 579, 585. Having the power to raise money for the purposes under consideration by taxation or borrowing, and to apply it directly, through the Treasury Department or any other department of the government selected for the purpose, Congress may accomplish the same ends through provisions of the Farm Loan Act, and the income derived therefrom, are within the powers of Congress to enact. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 169, 55 L. ed. 389, 420, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 49 L. ed. 78, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 47 L. ed. 532, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164, 3 L. ed. 303; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 431, 4 L. ed. 579, 607; Citizens' Sav. & L. Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 663, 22 L. ed. 455, 461; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. ed. 481; Farmers' & M. Sav. Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, 521, 58 L. ed. 706, 709, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Fidelity & D. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 240 U. S. 319, 60 L. ed. 664, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522, 60 L. ed. 779, 36 Sup. Ct. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 59 L. ed. 234, Rep. 453; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 23 L. ed. 196; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 668, 43 L. ed. 850, 852, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 47 L. ed. 452, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 288, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 522; Bank of California v. Richardson, 248 U. S. 476, 63 L. ed. 372, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165; Mercantile Nat. Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 30 L. ed. 895, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826. Congress might constitutionally have. 1920. SMITH v. KANSAS CITY TITLE & T. CO. created both classes of banks to serve as depositaries of public moneys and financial agents of the government. That it chose also to empower them to loan moneys on farm mortgages, even if that were not within its power to grant, would not impair the legality of the incorporation, nor its jurisdiction to protect them against national or state taxation. McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 53, 59, 49 L. ed. 78, 94, 97, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; Red "C" Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U. S. 380, 56 L. ed. 240, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 183 U. S. 471, 480, 46 L. ed. 283, 287, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246, 51 L. ed. 1047, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600, 11 Ann. Cas. 589. Solicitor General Frierson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General McAdoo, and Mr. J. P. Cotton, filed a brief for the United States as amici curiæ: United ed. 122; Ambrosini v. United States, 187 Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion A bill was filed in the United States district court for the western division of the western district of Missouri by a shareholder in the Kansas City Title & Trust Company to enjoin the company, its officers, agents, and employees, from investing the funds of the company in farm loan bonds issued by Federal land banks or joint stock land banks under authority of the Federal Farm Loan Act of July 17, 1916, 39 Stat. at L. 360, chap. 245, as amended January 18, 1918, 40 Stat. at L. 431, chap. 9, Comp. Stat. § 9835w, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 41. There can be no question of the power of Congress to grant to the farm loan bonds exemption from Federal taxation. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107, 169, 55 L. ed. 389, 420, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 47 L. ed. 532, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; New JerThe relief was sought on the ground sey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164, 3 L. ed. 303. Congress was empowered to create the that these acts were beyond the constiFederal land banks and joint stock banks tutional power of Congress. The bill as Federal corporations as necessary in- avers that the board of directors of the cidents and instruments of the farm loan company are [196] about to invest its bureau which it was empowered to create. funds in the bonds to the amount of $10,McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27,000 in each of the classes described, and The bill avers the in49 L. ed. 78, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769, 1 Ann. | will do so unless enjoined by the court in this action. Cas. 561. formation of twelve Federal land banks, and twenty-one joint stock land banks, under the provisions of the act. The creation of the farm loan banks system, the Federal land and the joint stock banks, is a constitutional exercise of the powers of Congress over the credit of the nation. Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 19 L. ed. 482; Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 20 L. ed. 287; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 442, 35 L. ed. 210, 211, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594. The exemption of the farm loan bonds from state taxation is within the power of Congress. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 583, 39 L. ed. 759, 820, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee (Van Brocklin v. Anderson) 117 U. S. 151, 29 L. ed. 845, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Collector v. Day (Buffington v. Day) 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. As to the Federal land banks, it is averred that each of them has loaned upon farm lands large amounts secured by mortgage, and, after depositing the same with the Farm Loan Registrar, has executed and issued collateral trust obligations called farm loan bonds, secured by the depositing of an equivalent and that each of said Federal land banks amount of farm mortgages and notes; has sold, and is continuing to offer for sale, large amounts of said farm loan bonds. The bill also avers that various persons in different parts of the United States have organized twenty-one joint stock land banks, the capital stock of which is subscribed for and owned by private persons; that the joint stock land banks have deposited notes and 583 sections, the President having, at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, set aside $5,000,000 for that purpose out of the $100,000,000 war funds. The three banks mentioned made upwards of 15,000 loans of that character, aggregating a sum upwards of $4,500,000, and are now engaged in collecting these loans, all of which are secured by crop liens; that these banks act in that capacity without compensation, receiving only the actual expenses incurred. Section 27 of the act provides that farm loan bonds [198] issued under the provisions of the act by Federal land banks or joint stock land banks shall be a lawful investment for all fiduciary and trust funds, and may be accepted as security for all public deposits. The bill avers that the defendant Trust Company is authorized to buy, invest in, and sell government, state, and municipal and other bonds, but it cannot buy, invest in, or sell any such bonds, papers, stocks, or securities which are not authorized to be issued by a valid law, or which are not investment securities; but that, nevertheless, it is about to invest in farm loan bonds; that the Trust Company has been induced to direct its officers to make the investment by reason of its reliance upon the provisions of the Farm Loan Acts, especially §§ 21, 26, and 27, by which the farm loan bonds are declared to be instrumentalities of the government of the United States, and as such, with the income derived therefrom, are declared to be exempt from Federal, state, municipal, and local taxation, and are further declared to be lawful investments for all fiduciary and trust funds. The bill further avers that the acts by which it is attempted to authorize the bonds are wholly illegal, void, and unconstitutional, and of no effect, because unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States. mortgages with the Farm Loan Regis- loans to farmers in drought-stricken trar, and issued an equivalent amount of collateral trust obligations called farm loan bonds, which have been sold and will be continued to be offered for sale to investors in large amounts in the markets of the country. A statement is given of the amount of deposits by the Secretary of the Treasury with the Federal land banks, for which the banks have issued their certificates of indebtedness bearing interest at 2 per cent per annum. It is averred that on September 30, 1919, Federal land banks owned United States bonds of the par value of $4,230,805; and the joint stock land banks owned like bonds of the par value of $3,287,503 on August 31, 1919; that, pursuant to the provisions of the act, the Secretary of the Treasury has invested $8,892,130 of the public funds in the capital stock of the Federal land banks, and that on July 1, 1919, the Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the United States, held $8,265,809 of the capital stock of the Federal land banks; [197] that, pursuant to the provisions of § 32 of the act, as amended, the Secretary of the Treasury has purchased farm loan bonds issued by the Federal land banks of the par value of $149,775,000; that, up to September 30, 1919, bonds have been issued under the act by the Federal land banks to the amount of $285,600,000, of which about $135,000,000 are held in the Treasury of the United States, purchased under the authority of the amendment of January 19, 1918; that, up to September 30, 1919, twenty-seven joint stock land banks have been incorporated under the act, having an aggregate capital of $8,000,000, all of which has been subscribed and $7,450,000 paid in; that bonds have been issued by joint stock land banks to the amount of $41,000,000, which are now in the hands of the public; that the Secretary of the Treasury, up to the time of the filing of the bill, has not designated any of the Federal land banks nor the joint stock land banks as depositaries of public money, nor, except as stated later in the bill, has he employed them or any of them as financial agents of the government, nor have they or any of them performed any duties as depositaries of public money, nor have they or any of them accepted any deposits or engaged in any banking business. The bill avers that, during the summer of 1918, the Federal land banks at Wichita, St. Paul, and Spokane were designated as financial agents of the government for making seed grain The bill prays that the acts of Congress authorizing the creation of the banks, especially §§ 26 and 27 thereof, shall be adjudged and decreed to be unconstitutional, void, and of no effect, and that the issuance of the farm loan bonds, and the taxation exemption feature thereof, shall be adjudged and decreed to be invalid. The First Joint Stock Land Bank of Chicago and the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, Kansas, were allowed to intervene, and became parties defendant to the suit. The Kansas City Title & Trust Company filed a motion to dismiss in the nature of a general demurrer, and, upon hearing, the district court entered a decree dismissing the bill; from this decree appeal was taken to this court. [199] No objection is made to the Federal jurisdiction, either original or appellate, by the parties to this suit, but that question will be first examined. The company is authorized to invest its funds in legal securities only. The attack upon the proposed investment in the bonds described is because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the acts of Congress undertaking to organize the banks and authorize the issue of the bonds. No other reason is set forth in the bill as a ground of objection to the proposed investment by the board of directors, acting in the company's behalf. As diversity of citizenship is lacking, the jurisdiction of the district court depends upon whether the cause of action set forth arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Judicial Code, § 24. The general rule is that, where it appears from the bill or statement of the plaintiff that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that such Federal claim is not merely colorable, and rests upon a reasonable foundation, the district court has jurisdiction under this provision. At an early date, considering the grant of constitutional power to confer jurisdiction upon the Federal courts, Chief Justice Marshall said: "a case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the construction of either," Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 379, 5 L. ed. 257, 285; and again, when "the right or title set up by the party may be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or law of the United States, and sustained by the opposite construction." Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 822, 6 L. ed. 204, 224. These definitions were quoted and approved in Patton v. Brady, 184 U S. 608, 611, 46 L. ed. 713, 715, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493, citing Little York Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201, 24 L. ed. 656, 658; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257, 25 L. ed. 648; White v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 307, 29 L. ed. 199, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 923, 962; New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 139, 26 L. ed. 96, 97. [200] This characterization of a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States has been followed in many decisions of this and other Federal courts. See Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 215 U. S. 501, 506, 507, 54 L ed. 300, 303, 304, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 569, 3, 56 L. ed. 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704. The principle was applied in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co. 240 U. S. 1, 60 L. ed. 493, LR.A.1917D, 414, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, in which a shareholder filed a bill to enjoin the defendant corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913. In that case, while there was diversity of citizenship, a direct appeal to this court was sustained because of the constitutional questions raised in the bill, which had been dismissed by the court below. The repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, as well as grounds of equitable jurisdiction, were set forth in the bill, and the right to come here on direct appeal was sustained because of the averments based upon constitutional objections to the act. Reference was made to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. 429, 39 L ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, where a similar shareholder's right to sue was maintained, and a direct appeal to this court from a decree of the circuit court was held to be authorized. In the Brushaber Case the Chief Justice, speaking for the court, said: "The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States, of the peculiar relation of the corporation to the stockholders, and their particular interests resulting from many of the administrative provisions of the assailed act, of the confusion, wrong, and multiplicity of suits, and the absence of all means of redress which would result if the corporation paid the tax and complied with the act in other respects without protest, as it was alleged it was its intention to do. To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction, we at once say that, in view of these averments and [201] the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. supra, sustaining the right of a stockholder to sue to restrain a corporation, under proper averments, from voluntarily paying a tax charged to be unconstitutional, on the ground that to permit such a suit did not violate the prohibitions of § 3224, Rev. Stat., |
