City of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co.

Decision Date30 June 1881
Citation57 Md. 31
PartiesTHE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. THE BALTIMORE CITY PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

This appeal is taken from a pro forma decree of the Court below, passed the 1st April, 1881, enjoining the appellant from taking any steps to collect municipal taxes assessed and levied upon the shares of the capital stock of the appellee a corporation of the State of Maryland, for the years 1879 and 1880. The shares of stock were valued and assessed by the State Tax Commissioner, acting under the authority of the Act of 1878, ch. 178, and an account of the same returned by that officer, in person, to the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City, on the 24th and 22nd days of July, 1879 and 1880 respectively. All of the shares of stock so returned by the Tax Commissioner to the Appeal Tax Court, were owned by residents of the City of Baltimore, or by non-residents of the State of Maryland. The case is further stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., GRASON, ROBINSON RITCHIE and IRVING, J.

James L. McLane, City Counsellor, for the appellant.

Arthur W. Machen, for the appellee.

ROBINSON J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a pro forma decree, enjoining the appellant from taking any steps to collect municipal taxes assessed and levied upon the shares of the capital stock of the appellee, a corporation chartered by and doing business in this State.

It is not contended that there is any provision in the appellee's charter, nor any general law exempting its shares of stock from taxation. The contention however is, that the taxes, the collection of which is now sought to be enjoined, were levied upon an assessment made by the State Tax Commissioner, and that this officer had no authority under the law to make such assessment. And this of course depends upon the construction of the Act of 1878, ch. 178, defining and prescribing the duties of Tax Commissioner. Sec. 149 of that Act, provides that he shall assess for State purposes, the shares of capital stock of all corporations chartered by and doing business in this State, whose shares of stock are liable to assessment and taxation by the laws of this State; and he shall have all the powers and perform the duties in reference thereto, which have heretofore devolved upon the Comptroller.

The powers and duties of the Comptroller in this respect, are prescribed by sec. 145 of the Act of 1874, ch. 483, which directs, that he shall assess the shares of capital stock of all corporations located and doing business in this State,--" except railroad and canal companies."

It is clear then that the Tax Commissioner has no power to assess the shares of stock of railroad companies, because such shares are excepted from the assessment to be made by the Comptroller under the Act 1874.

The question then is whether the appellee, a street railway company, is a railroad company within the meaning of sec. 145. We are now dealing with an Act of the Legislature providing for the assessment and taxation of property, and the question is not whether the term " railroad company" in its broadest sense may not be understood as including a street railway company, but whether as used in sec. 145, in excepting the shares of stock of railroad companies from assessment by the Comptroller, the Legislature meant to embrace the shares of stock of a street railway.

Now in order to understand the meaning of the term railroad company as used in sec. 145, and the reasons why the stock of such companies was excepted from assessment, it is necessary to refer to the Act of 1874, chap. 408, by which it will be seen, that a tax upon the gross receipts of all railroad companies worked by steam, was imposed in lieu of all other State taxes. And hence in the subsequent Act chap. 483, passed at the same session of the Legislature, providing for the assessment and taxation of property, the shares of stock of railroad companies were excepted from the assessment to be made, by the Comptroller for State purposes. The State had already imposed a tax upon the gross receipts of such companies in lieu of a tax upon the capital stock. There is, however, no tax imposed upon the gross receipts of a street railway. And when we find in the Act of 1878, chap. 483, provision for the assessment and valuation of the shares of stock of all corporations, chartered by and doing business in this State, and the same provision in every assessment law since 1841, we can hardly suppose the Legislature meant to exempt the shares of capital stock of street railways from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Corry v. City of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 1903
    ... ... person in the state or person holding property therein, ought ... to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the support ... of the government, according to his actual worth in real or ... personal property." In the case of Mayor, etc., of ... City of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co., 57 ... Md. 31, it is said that express provision is made by the act ... for valuing the stock owned by nonresidents at the place ... where the company has its principal office for the ... transaction of business, that the shares of stock held by ... nonresidents are liable to ... ...
  • City of Baltimore v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 1903
    ...upheld the power of the Legislature to fix the situs of personal property for purposes of assessment and taxation. M. & C.C. of Balto. v. Balto. City Pass. R. Co., 57 Md. 31; Am. Coal Co. v. County Com'rs of Allegany 59 Md. 185; Baldwin v. Washington Co., 85 Md. 157, 36 A. 764; Corry v. M. ......
  • City of Baltimore v. Chester River Steamboat Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1906
  • South Nashville St. R. Co. v. Morrow
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1889
    ...tax on shares. Maltby v Railroad Co., 52 Pa. St. 140; Ottawa v. McCaleb, 81 Ill. 556; New Orleans v. Bank, 31 La. Ann. 826; Baltimore v. Passenger Co., 57 Md. 31; St. Albans v. Car Co., 57 Vt. 68; Lionberger Rowse, 43 Mo. 67; Coal Co. v. Allegany Co., 59 Md. 197. The next question to be con......

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