Chicago v. State of Missouri Guffey
Decision Date | 07 March 1887 |
Parties | CHICAGO, B. & K. C. R. Co. v. STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. GUFFEY, Collector, etc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
L. T. Hatfield and A. W. Mullins, for plaintiff in error.
B. G. Boone and John P. Butler, for defendant in error.
The judgment which this writ of error brings up for review affirms the liability to taxation, in Missouri, for state and county purposes, of what was formerly known as the Central North Missouri Branch of the St. Joseph & Iowa Railroad, more recently named the Linneus Branch of the Burlington & Southwestern Railway Company, and now owned by the Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railroad Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri. The latter company claims to have succeeded to all the rights, priviliges, and immunities granted to the St. Joseph & Iowa Railroad Company in its charter of 1857, among which was an exemption of its stock from taxation for 'state and county' purposes. As the construction which the supreme court of Missouri places upon certain legislation, enacted after the charter of the St. Joseph & Iowa Railroad Company was granted, is inconsistent with the exemption claimed, the controlling question on this writ of error is whether the local statutes, as interpreted and applied by that court, impair the obligation of any contract which the company had with the state, and thereby deprive its successor, the plaintiff in error, of any rights secured by the constitution of the United States.
That question mainly depends upon the construction of an act of the general assembly of Missouri entitled 'An act to aid in the building of branch railroads in the state of Missouri,' approved March 21, 1868. That act took effect from its passage, and is as follows:
'(1) Any railroad company in this state authorized by law to build branches, and wishing to avail themselves of the provisions of this act, shall, by its board of directors, pass, and cause to be entered upon its records, a resolution setting forth such desire, and designating the name under which such branch shall be built, its point of intersection with its main line, and general course, a certified copy of which resolution shall be filed with the secretary of state, after which they shall be governed by the provisions of this act.
'(4) The holders of stock in an railroad company which was subscribed in aid of the construction of a branch road according to the provisions of this act shall have the same rights as other stockholders in the company in the choice of officers; but in all matters directly and specially affecting the interests of such branch road the stockholders in such branch shall control, and for such purpose the directors, under their by-laws, may, or on the petition of parties representing one-tenth of such stock shall, call a meeting of the stockholders in such branch, setting forth the object of such meeting; and at any such meeting such stockholders may instruct the board of directors in all matters relating especially to their interests, and they shall be governed by such instructions, if not inconsistent with the laws of the state and the powers of such company.' Laws Mo. 1868, p. 90.
The branch road in question was constructed under the provisions of that statute. That fact distinctly appears from the preamble and resolutions adopted by the board of directors of the St. Joseph & Iowa Railroad Company, March 25, 1871, (a certified copy thereof being filed April 19, 1871, in the office of the secretary of state of Missouri,) and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...is strictly to be construed, and must be in language and terms too clear to admit of doubt. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Missouri ex rel. Guffy, 120 U. S. 569, 7 Sup. Ct. 693, 30 L. Ed. 732;State ex rel. v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200, 75 N. W. 210; County v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344, 45 N. W. 615. The ru......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg's Estate
...instances of such legislature-baiting, see Allen, Law In the Making (1927) 275, 276. 1a See, e.g., Chicago, B. & K. C. R. Co. v. Guffey, 120 U.S. 569, 575, 7 S.Ct. 693, 30 L.Ed. 732; Phenix Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 174, 177, 16 S.Ct. 471, 40 L.Ed. 660; Willcuts v. ......
-
Knoxville & O.R. Co. v. Harris
... ... Harris, state comptroller, to recover taxes paid under ... protest. From a decree of ... Whitworth, 117 U.S. 136, 6 S.Ct. 645; Railroad v ... Guffey, 120 U.S. 569, 7 S.Ct. 693; New Orleans City & L. R. Co. v. New Orleans, ... R. Co. v. People, 165 ... U.S. 628, 17 S.Ct. 418; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S ... 68, 7 S.Ct. 350; Bell's Gap R. Co. v ... Pennsylvania, ... ...
-
State v. Great Northern Railway Company
...by subsequent laws. Southwestern R. Co. v. Wright, 116 U.S. 231; Wilmington & W.R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 146 U.S. 279; Chicago, B. & K.C.R. Co. v. Guffey, 120 U.S. 569; Baltimore v. Mayor, 89 Md. 89. Prior to 1871 state did not have the power, possessed by the territory, of creating a commuted s......