ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM Transp. v. SHEPARD
| Decision Date | 24 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 5106,5106 |
| Citation | 201 P.2d 772,53 N.M. 52 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM TRANSPORT, LIMITED, et al. v. SHEPARD. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Leon S. Hirsh, of Chicago, Ill., Gail L. Ireland, of Denver, Colo., and Wilson & Whitehouse, of Albuquerque, for appellants.
C. C. McCulloh, Atty. Gen., Robert Wollard, Asst. Atty. Gen. and A. H. McLeod and Theo. E. Jones, both of Albuquerque, for appellee.
The plaintiffs are the owners of certain railroad freight cars which they rent to common carrier railroad companies at a rate of compensation fixed by order and tariff of the United States Interstate Commerce Commission. These cars are moved by common carrier railroads into, out of, and across the State of New Mexico, but none of them are permanently located in this State nor in any taxing district. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 128, Session Laws of 1945, the State Tax Commission ordered the several common carrier railroads operating within this State to deduct from the rental price payable to these plaintiffs an amount equal to 3 1/2% of the gross receipts of each taxpayer for the calendar year ending December 31, 1945, such receipts being confined to those derived from New Mexico mileage only. Thereafter the State Tax Commission ordered the several railroad companies to pay such sums withheld by them to the State Treasurer on or before the first day of March, 1946, which they did. Then plaintiffs filed a protest against the actions of the State Tax Commission. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
On October 5, 1946, plaintiffs, nineteen non-resident corporations, brought this action under Sections 25-601 and 25-603, 1941 Comp., for a declaratory judgment, claiming among other things that the statute under which they were taxed is unconstitutional; that the defendant is wrongfully withholding their money without authority of law; and for its refund.
Plaintiffs alleged that on May 31, 1946, they deposited in the United States mail acomplaint and protest addressed to the StateTax Commission at Santa Fe, New Mexico, against its withholding of said sums of money, and prayed for a hearing, and a refund of the money paid by them on account of such taxes.
The defendant answering alleged that the complaint and protest were not filed within the time required by law, nor by the proper parties but by associated Railway Equipment Owners, strangers to the tax proceedings. Thereafter the defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of a material fact. The lower court sustained the motion and entered its judgment dismissing the complaint. From the judgment so entered plaintiffs appeal.
Whether the plaintiffs' protest was timely filed, and whether they exhausted their statutory remedies, are the first matters for consideration. Section 6, Chapter 128, Session Laws of 1945, in part, provides as follows:
'* * * The tax levied herein shall be in lieu of property taxes only, and no tax other than as in this act imposed shall be assessed against the property of any such organization except in cases where any such organization shall make complaint in writing to the commission on or before June 1 of the year in which the tax herein imposed is assessed, claiming that it is taxed at too great a rate hereunder * * *.' (Emphasis ours.)
Under the Act a suit is not authorized until and unless a protest is filed with the State Tax Commission. It necessarily follows that, if the making of a complaint in writing with the State Tax Commission is necessary as a pre-requisite to a hearing, then, in the absence of the procedure, the Commission is without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Sovey v. Ford Motor Co., 279 Mich. 313, 272 N.W. 689.
In this connection, plaintiffs urge that they had until and including Saturday, June 1, 1946, within which to file their protest; that since the protest was air-mailed from Denver, Colorado, on Friday, may 31, 1946, it undoubtedly would have been received by the State Tax Commission on that date, but for the fact that its office was closed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Felton
...v. Utter, 44 Idaho 385, 257 P. 480; Tarabino Real Estate Co. v. Sandoval, 115 Colo. 336, 173 P.2d 459; Associated Petroleum Transport, Ltd. v. Shepard, 53 N.M. 52, 201 P.2d 772; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 249 P.2d 17; Insurance Exchange Bldg. v. Board of Supervisors of Polk County,......
-
Gzaskow v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd. & Each Member of the Bd. in His Or Her Official Capacity
... ... (reversing district court issuance of writ of prohibition); Associated Petroleum Transp., Ltd. v. Shepard , 1949-NMSC-002, 12, 53 N.M. 52, 201 ... ...
-
Grand Lodge of Ancient and Accepted Masons of New Mexico v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of State of N.M.
...Raton v. McBride, 20 N.M. 381, 149 P. 353 (1915). This doctrine was extended to declaratory judgments in Associated Petroleum Transp., Ltd. v. Shepard, 53 N.M. 52, 201 P.2d 772 (1949). Consequently, the declaratory judgment statute must be read in tandem with statutes providing judicial rev......
-
Potash Co. of America v. New Mexico Public Service Commission
...On several occasions we have furnished an affirmative answer to the inquiry in similar situations. See, Associated Petroleum Transport v. Shepard, 53 N.M. 52, 201 P.2d 772; American Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Shepard, 53 N.M. 271, 206 P.2d 551; Smith v. Southern Union Gas Co., 58 N.M. 197,......