C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtLYON
Citation10 N.W. 560,53 Wis. 509
Decision Date22 November 1881
PartiesC., M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. STATE OF WISCONSIN.

53 Wis. 509
10 N.W. 560

C., M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed November 22, 1881.


In the year 1871 the plaintiff company leased a short line of railway in this state of another company for 20 years, and has ever since operated the same. In 1880 the plaintiff purchased three other short lines of railway of other companies by which the same were built, and has ever since owned and operated such lines. The gross earnings of each of these lines of railroad for the year 1880 were less than $3,000 per mile, and of one of them less than $1,500 per mile. The gross earnings of all the lines of railroad of the plaintiff company in this state (including the above lines) exceeded $3,000 per mile in 1880. The license fee which the plaintiff would be required to pay for 1881, computed at 4 per cent. on the gross earnings of all its lines in this state in 1880, is over $14,000 more than it would be were it computed separately upon the gross earnings of the lines thus leased and purchased, without reference to the plaintiff's other lines. The license fee was computed by the state treasurer on the former basis, and the plaintiff was compelled to pay, and did pay, one-half the required amount in February, 1881, in order to obtain a license for that year to operate its railways. In August, 1881, the plaintiff paid to the state treasurer, on account of the balance of its license fee for that year, a sum less than it was required to pay in February preceding, and less than the state treasurer demanded, by a little more than $14,000. This alleged deficiency is the difference between the two modes of computing the license fee above mentioned. This action was brought in this court. The complaint states the facts in detail, of which the foregoing is a summary. The prayer for relief is as follows:

First, that this honorable court will adjudge and determine that only the sum of $240,931.44 was due from said plaintiff to the state for license to operate said several railroads for the calendar year from January 1 to December 31, 1881, and restrain the said state treasurer and attorney general from any and all proceedings to collect any amount for said licence in excess of said sums; second, that it will restrain all proceedings on the part of said state to collect the pecuniary penalty of $10,000, mentioned in section 1214, Rev. St., or from taking any proceedings to have the rights, privileges, and franchises of said plaintiff forfeited, as provided in said section; third, and that, until the final hearing of said cause, a preliminary order may be made restraining said treasurer and attorney general from instituting any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...67 Wis. 24, 29 N. W. 565;Wallace v. City of Menasha, 48 Wis. 79, 4 N. W. 101, 33 Am. Rep. 804;C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111, 42 L. R. A. 39. [114 N.W. 512]W. R. Foley and L. H. Mead, for appellants.Luse, Powell &a......
  • Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 5, 1962
    ...legislation before any suit may be commenced against the state. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. The State (1881), 53 Wis. 509, 10 N.W. 560; Houston v. The State (1898), 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111, 42 A.L.R. 39; Schlesinger v. State (1928), 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440, 57 A.L.R......
  • State ex rel. Wausau St. Ry. Co. v. Bancroft
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 30, 1912
    ...U. S. 561, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596. For defendants, counsel cited, among other authorities, the following: Railroad Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535; Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216;Mor......
  • Umansky v. Abc Ins. Co., No. 2007AP385.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 17, 2009
    ...the express consent of the legislature.") (citing Lister, 72 Wis.2d at 291, 240 N.W.2d 610; Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 512-13, 10 N.W. 560 (1881); Bahr v. State Inv. Bd., 186 Wis.2d 379, 521 N.W.2d 152 ¶ 115 It is also telling that the Umanskys have gone out ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...67 Wis. 24, 29 N. W. 565;Wallace v. City of Menasha, 48 Wis. 79, 4 N. W. 101, 33 Am. Rep. 804;C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Houston v. State, 98 Wis. 481, 74 N. W. 111, 42 L. R. A. 39. [114 N.W. 512]W. R. Foley and L. H. Mead, for appellants.Luse, Powell &a......
  • Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 5, 1962
    ...legislation before any suit may be commenced against the state. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. The State (1881), 53 Wis. 509, 10 N.W. 560; Houston v. The State (1898), 98 Wis. 481, 74 N.W. 111, 42 A.L.R. 39; Schlesinger v. State (1928), 195 Wis. 366, 218 N.W. 440, 57 A.L.R......
  • State ex rel. Wausau St. Ry. Co. v. Bancroft
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 30, 1912
    ...U. S. 561, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596. For defendants, counsel cited, among other authorities, the following: Railroad Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 10 N. W. 560;Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535; Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. Ed. 216;Mor......
  • Umansky v. Abc Ins. Co., No. 2007AP385.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 17, 2009
    ...the express consent of the legislature.") (citing Lister, 72 Wis.2d at 291, 240 N.W.2d 610; Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. State, 53 Wis. 509, 512-13, 10 N.W. 560 (1881); Bahr v. State Inv. Bd., 186 Wis.2d 379, 521 N.W.2d 152 ¶ 115 It is also telling that the Umanskys have gone out ......
  • 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