Marye v. Baltimore Co

Decision Date23 April 1888
PartiesMARYE, Auditor, v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is a bill in equity filed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company against the taxing officer of the state of Virginia, for the purpose of enjoining him from selling certain engines and cars, the property of the complainant, for the payment of a tax alleged to have been illegally assessed thereon. There was a decree in the circuit court granting the relief prayed for, from which this appeal is prosecuted. The material facts in the case are these: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Maryland, and a citizen thereof, by virtue of whose charter its rolling stock is exempt from taxation. The line of its road does not at any point lie in the state of Virginia. It, however, connects with certain roads belonging to corporations incorporated by various acts of the legislature of Virginia, to-wit, the Winchester & Potomac Railroad, the Winchester & Strasburg Railroad, and the Strasburg & Harrisonburg Railroad, the last named being a part of the old Manassas Gap Railroad; and, during a portion of the time embraced in the period for which the taxes in question were levied, it worked the Valley Railroad from Harrisonburg to Staunton. All of these roads were operated by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company by virtue of leases or contracts, which company for that purpose furnished and used its own rolling stock, consisting of engines and cars. None of the Virginia corporations owning either of these roads was the owner of any rolling stock. The manner in which this rolling stock was employed for this purpose is thus described: 'There is no such rolling stock assigned permanently to the four lines above named, or either of them, in the state of Virginia. The trains in which the rolling stock is used on the four lines above named now start from Lexington, Va., and pass through the state of Virginia, over the four lines of railroad above named, into the state of West Virginia, and thence into the state of Maryland, to the city of Baltimore, or, if any of the cars are destined to western points, thence from Harper's Ferry to the west; but the trains in which the cars are hauled are run solid from Lexington, Va., (and formerly before the road was completed to Lexington from Staunton, Va.,) to Baltimore. None of the rolling stock is assigned permanently to service in the state of Virginia, nor is any of the rolling stock set apart to the four lines in that state, or to the four Valley lines above mentioned at all; but such rolling stock is used interchangeably upon the main line and branches of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in the states of Maryland and Virginia, and, indeed, also, upon the divisions of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in Pennsylvania, and in states west of the Ohio river, just as the necessities of the service of the company require. Sometimes this rolling stock will be found on the main line, sometimes on the Pittsburgh division, and sometimes on the trans-Ohio divisions, and there is none of it that is permanently set apart for use upon the four Valley lines in Virginia above described.' The several Virginia corpr ations owning these four railroads, respectively, made their annual reports to the auditor of public accounts as required by law, and were by the board of public works duly assessed on their roadways, tracks, depots, and other real estate owned by them. No tax was assessed or levied, as against them, on account of any rolling stock because they were not reported to be the owners of any. In the month of June, 1883, the auditor of public accounts for the state of Virginia assessed the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company for taxes on its rolling stock used on these roads for the years from 1870 to 1881, inclusive, amounting in the aggregate, for 11 years, to the sum of $22,249.25, and placed the assessment in the hands of the treasurer of Augusta county, Va., for collection. This officer was proceeding to collect these taxes by a distraint of the rolling stock in question, the property of the complainant, when his proceedings were arrested by the injunction of the circuit court, afterwards made perpetual by its final decree.

The act of the general assembly of the state of Virgina, under which the assessment and collection of these taxes are sought to be justified, is contained in section 20, c. 119, of the Acts of the Virginia legislature, session of 1881-82, being part of the taxing laws of the state originally enacted in 1870 and 1871, and continued, with amendments, to the present time. The material part of the act applicable to this case is as follows: '(19) Every railroad and canal company not exempted from taxation by virtue of its charter shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of forrest County
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1932
    ... ... 826 (29 ... L.Ed. 158, 163, 164); Western Union Teleg. Co. v ... Massachusetts, 125 U.S. 530, 549, 8 S.Ct. 961 (31 L.Ed ... 790, 793); Marye v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 127 U.S ... 117, 124, 8 S.Ct. 1037 (32 L.Ed. 94, 96); Leloup v. Port ... of Mobile, 127 U.S. 640, 649, 8 S.Ct. 1380, ... ...
  • Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • November 8, 1917
  • Atlantic Pacific Telegraph Company v. City of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1903
    ...Rep. 836; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Atty. Gen. 125 U. S. 530, 31 L. ed. 790, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961; Marye v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 127 U. S. 117, 123, 32 L. ed. 94, 96, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1037; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 649, 32 L. ed. 311, 314, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 134, 8 Sup. Ct. R......
  • Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Missouri State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1968
    ...may impose a property tax upon its fair share of an interstate transportation enterprise. Marye v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 127 U.S. 117, 123 124, 8 S.Ct. 1037, 1039—1040, 32 L.Ed. 94 (1888); Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 11 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed. 613 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT