Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

Citation50 L.Ed. 477,200 U.S. 273,26 S.Ct. 252
Decision Date15 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 88,88
PartiesU. X. GUNTER, Jr., Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, et al., Appts. , v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. W. F. Stevenson and Messrs. Stevenson & Matheson for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 274-277 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Theodore G. Barker, P. A. Willcox, and J. T. Barron for appellee.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

Before analyzing the facts particularly bearing upon the legal questions for decision, in order to a comprehension of those questions, we summarize, in their chronological order, matters which are undisputed concerning the origin and development of this controversy.

The legislature of South Carolina, in 1855, exempted the capital stock and property of the Northeastern Railroad Company from all taxation during its charter existence. In 1849 the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company was chartered by legislative act, and, by an amendment to the charter, adopted in 1863, the last-named company was endowed with all the powers, rights, and privileges granted by the charter of the Northeastern Railroad Company; it being besides provided that the charter should not be subject to the provisions of a general law, reserving the right to repeal, alter, and amend, except where otherwise specially provided.

Under the assumed authority of a law of South Carolina, providing for the assessment and taxation of property, passed in 1868 (14 S. C. Stat. pp. 27 to 69), the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad was assessed in the counties of Darlington and Chesterfield, through which the road ran. It became the duty of the respective treasurers of the counties named to collect the state and county taxes on the assessment thus made, and they proceeded so to do. Thereupon, in 1870, Thomas E. B. Pegues, a citizen of Mississippi, a stockholder of the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad, filed his bill in the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina against the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company and the treasurers of Darlington and Chesterfield counties, seeking to enjoin the corporation from paying, and the county treasurers from collecting, the taxes referred to. The ground stated for the relief prayed was that the taxes in question impaired the obligation of the charter contract of exemption, and were, therefore, repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Various provisions of a law of South Carolina, adopted in 1870, as an amendment to the act of 1868 under which the taxes were levied, restricting the right of the corporation to resist the collection of taxes, or to recover back an illegal tax, if paid, were alleged as justifying the interposition of a court of equity. An injunction pendente lite was allowed, restraining the collection of the disputed taxes. By its answer the corporation admitted the averments of the bill. A joint answer was filed for the two county treasurers, signed by 'The Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, for defendants.' This answer admitted the assessment, the steps taken to collect the taxes, and asserted their validity, and denied the existence of the alleged contract of exemption. It was averred that, if such an exemption ever existed, it was subject to the legislative power to repeal, alter, and amend, and such repeal was alleged to have been operated by constitutional and legislative provisions, which were referred to. Jurisdiction of the court in equity was challenged on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law. A final decree passed in favor of the complainant, recognizing the alleged exemption, and perpetuating the injunction. An appeal was prosecuted to this court. The cause was decided at the December term, 1872. It was held that there was a contract of exemption, which would be impaired by enforcing the taxes complained of, and bence the decree below was affirmed. Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244, 21 L. ed. 326.

For at least twenty-five years following the decision in the Pegues Case no attempt was made to tax the property of the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company. In the year 1897 an act was passed, directing the attorney general to proceed to test the right of any railroad company to exemption, and, under this act, that official sued the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company to recover $134,000, the sum of taxes, penalties, and interest for a period of twenty years, on the alleged ground that the company had been mistakenly treated as having a contract of exemption. The supreme court of the state, however, without passing upon the question of exemption, decided that the right to recover did not obtain, because, in any event, an assessment against the railroad, as provided by law, was a prerequisite to the levy and collection of taxes.

From a statement made in the argument of counsel, it is to be deduced that during the year 1898 the capital stock and property of the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company was acquired by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of South Carolina, and, as the result of a charter granted to that company by the state of South Carolina, in 1898, it is conceded that the property formerly belonging to the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company became taxable, and that the state has, since that time, levied and collected the taxes due on the property. It is, moreover, conceded that the appellee on this record, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a Virginia corporation, acquired, in 1900, the property of the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company, as the successor of the South Carolina corporation which bore the same name.

In the year 1900 an act was passed in South Carolina, providing for the assessment for taxation of railroad property 'which has been off the tax books for the years in which they have been off the books, and to fix the time when such taxes shall become due, and for the collection thereof.' The act created a board to make the assessment to which it referred, limited the taxes to be imposed to ten years back, provided that the assessment made by the board should be put upon the rolls separately for each of the back years, and that there should be levied upon such assessment state and county taxes for the years to which the back assessment related. The act caused the taxes for which it provided to become a lien against the property upon which they might bear, and directed a certification of the taxes as assessed and levied to the respective county treasurers, and made it their duty to collect the same. To this end such treasurers were directed to make a demand for payment upon the company in whose name the assessment was made, or, if it was found that the property assessed was 'in the control of another company, demand should be made of the company . . . in possession of the property.' By the act, in addition, the attorney general was directed, if the back taxes assessed were not paid within sixty days after demand, to bring a suit in the name of the state, with the co-operation of such counsel as the counties might employ, to enforce the collection of the back taxes against the company in whose name they were assessed, or against the company found in possession of the property assessed.

A meeting of the board appointed by this act was called in May, 1900, by the secretary of state, for the purpose of assessing the property formerly belonging to the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Comapny, and in the control and possession of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, for a period of ten years back from 1898, on the ground that, during such period, the property in question had not been taxed for state or county purposes. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company appeared and protested against the proposed assessment. In the protest it directed the attention of the board to the exemption act, to the injunction granted, and the decree rendered and affirmed by this court in the Pegues Case. The board overruled the protest and valued the property of the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company for a period of ten years back from 1898, inclusive. The valuation so made was certified to the officials of the counties of Chesterfield, Darlington, and Florence, respectively, these three counties embracing the territory included in the counties of Chesterfield and Darlington at the time the decree was rendered in the Pegues Case. The state and county taxes for the years covered by the assessments were placed upon the rolls, and the taxes were certified for collection to the county treasurers. These officers demanded payment of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, as the company in possession and control of the property taxed. The company refusing to pay, the attorney general of the state of South Carolina, and counsel associated with him, commenced, in the common pleas court in the respective counties, actions in the name of the state to enforce payment against the Cheraw & Darlington Railroad Company and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, as the corporation in possession of the property. Thereupon the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, alleging itself to be a citizen of Virginia, commenced, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina, the proceeding which is now before us against the attorney general of the state, the counsel associated with him in the suits above referred to, and the treasurers of Chesterfield, Darlington, and Florence counties. The petition which initiated the proceeding was filed as ancillary to the original Pegues Case, and was entitle and numbered as of that cause. It referred to the prior proceedings in the cause, including the perpetual injunction therein issued, and to the decree of this court which affirmed the same. It alleged the assessment of back taxes as above stated, the asserted lien resulting therefrom, the demand of payment, and the suits brought to enforce payment,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
251 cases
  • United States v. Mottolo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • 15 Marzo 1985
    ...claim or asserted for the purpose of obtaining an affirmative judgment against the State. See Gunter v. Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 284, 26 S.Ct. 252, 256, 50 L.Ed. 477 (1906); Fort Fetterman v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 261 F.2d 563, 569 (4th Cir.1958); Harsh ......
  • Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 15 Marzo 2021
    ...of its own voluntary act by invoking the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment.’ ")(quoting Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. , 200 U.S. 273, 284, 26 S.Ct. 252, 50 L.Ed. 477 (1906) ) (emphasis added in Lapides ); Fifth Ave. Assocs., L.P. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Taxation & Fin. (In re 995......
  • Crowson v. Cody
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1926
    ... ... [110 So. 47] ... W.A ... Gunter, of Montgomery, for appellant ... Ball ... Northern Pacific Railway Company brought a suit in equity ... against Slaght, who ... the Northern Pacific Railroad Company of July 2, 1864 (13 ... Stat. 365), ... 18 S.Ct. 18, 42 L.Ed. 355; Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line ... R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 26 S.Ct ... ...
  • 4115,4116,| United States ex rel. Miller v. Clausen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 13 Julio 1923
    ... ... 264, 5 ... L.Ed. 257; Railroad Co. v. Miss., 102 U.S. 135, 26 ... L.Ed. 96; ... 248, 26 ... Sup.Ct. 245, 50 L.Ed. 464; Gunter v. A. Coast Line R ... Co., 200 U.S. 273, 274, ... an individual, partnership, association, company, or ... other unincorporated body of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE MISUNDERSTOOD ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 3, February 2021
    • 1 Febrero 2021
    ...in which "the actor, or plaintiff,... complains of an injury done"). (114) Clark, 108 U.S. at 447. (115) 134 U.S. 1, 17 (1890). (116) 200 U.S. 273, 284 (1906) (out-of-state (117) 290 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1933) (diversity litigation over a trust). (118) 178 U.S. 436, 440-41 (1900). On whether thi......
  • Trends in Climate Justice Litigation: The Dutch Case and Global Repercussions
    • United States
    • Climate justice. Case Studies in Global and Regional Governance Challenges Climate Justice in the Courts
    • 20 Diciembre 2016
    ...be manifested by the state voluntarily appearing in the court to defend itself on the merits of the case. Gunter v. A. Coast Line R.R., 200 U.S. 273, 284 (1906). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to suits iled against the state in state courts and before federal administrative agencies. A......

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