Cleveland St Ry Co v. Backus
Citation | 14 S.Ct. 1122,38 L.Ed. 1041,154 U.S. 439 |
Decision Date | 26 May 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 908,908 |
Parties | CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. BACKUS, Treasurer of Marion County, et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company against Victor M. Backus, as treasurer of Marion county, Ind., and others, brought in the superior court of that county, to restrain the collection of taxes on plaintiff's property. The court rendered judgment for defendants, which, on appeal, was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 33 N. E. 421. Plaintiff brought error.
John T. Dye, for plaintiff in error.
A. G. Smith, Atty. Gen. Ind., Wm. A. Ketcham, Albert J. Beveridge, and John W. Kern, for defendants in error.
This case is similar to the two just decided (14 Sup. Ct. 1114), in that it was a suit brought by this plaintiff in the same court, challenging an assessment of its railroad property for the same year, by the same board, with the same result both in the trial and supreme court of the state. Hence it is useless to reconsider the questions decided in those cases as to the constitutionality of the act itself, or those which depend solely upon like testimony. There was, however, in the trial of this case, a more elaborate effort to show that the state board included in its assessment the value of property outside the state, and also that the valuation placed nominally upon the property within the state was largely based upon interstate business done by the plaintiff, and thus, as is claimed, to that extent, placed a direct burden upon interstate commerce which, it is conceded, is beyond the power of the state to cast. It becomes necessary, therefore, to notice a little in detail the testimony which was received, as well as that which was excluded on the hearing.
It may be premised that there was much testimony of a character similar to that given in the other cases. Beyond that, there was a large amount of testimony received, as well as some offered and rejected, for the purpose of showing what was presented to the board for consideration, the method by which it reached its conclusions, and the elements which entered into its estimate of value. The principal witness relied on in respect to these matters was the secretary of state,—a member of the board. By him it was proved that no witness was sworn and examined, and no inquiry made in that way, as to the value of this property. It appeared that the return made by the company was before the board for consideration. The court ruled out an offer to prove that outside of such return no books, papers, or documents, except Poor's Manual and the Investors' Guide, were produced before the board, or considered by it in making the assessment; that Poor's Manual was used by it for data upon which to base the assessment; and specifically that this was the only evidence which it had as to the number of miles owned and leased by the plaintiff, the state in which they were located, and the various incumbrances upon the different lines of road included in the system belonging to the plaintiff. It was shown that the plaintiff appeared before the board by its officers, with such statements as they desired to make, and also that other individuals (especially an attorney representing Marion county, one of the counties through which the road of the plaintiff runs) appeared and made arguments. A series of questions was put to the witness, of which this is a sample:
But the court ruled the question out, on the ground that it was an attempt to inquire into the mental processes of members of the board. At the time counsel for the defendants stated:
'We desire to let the record show at this point, may the court please, that the defendant will interpose no objection to any question asked by the plaintiff as to whether or not the state board of tax commissioners assessed and valued any bonds, stocks, or anything else outside of the state, and that we will not object to any question asked any member of the state board of tax commissioners as to whether or not that board assessed anything else than railroad track and rolling stock inside of the state of Indiana.'
The plaintiff did not, however, apparently care to take advantage of this offer. Other questions were put to the witness, like the following:
But the court sustained objections to all of them. The witness was also asked, but not permitted to answer:
Another series of questions was propounded, of which the following is one:
Objections were made by the defendants to these questions, which were sustained; but afterwards, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bosworth
...... a railroad's property by an Indiana board in the case of. Pittsburg, etc., R.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421,. 14 Sup.Ct. 1114, 38 L.Ed. 1031, which he characterized as. 'a great increase,' but which was not as great an. increase as here, ... been recognized by this court several times as eminently. fair.'. . . And. again in the case of Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.R.R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439, 14 Sup.Ct. 1122, 38 L.E. 1041,. he said that one of the questions therein was:. [209 F. 423] . ......
-
Northern Securities Company v. United States
...to sell would necessarily deprive these defendants of their property without due process of law. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 445, 38 L. ed. 1041, 1046, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 677, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1122; Any combination 'for the purpose of 146 N. Y. 304, 40 N. E. ......
-
St Louis Fallon Ry Co v. United States United States v. St Louis Fallon Ry Co
...Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 328, 13 S. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 445, 14 S. Ct. 1122, 38 L. Ed. 1041; 1 Taussig, Principles of Economics, 115; Laughlin, Elements of Political Economy, pp. 23 Large incr......
-
State ex rel Battle v. B. D. Bailey & Sons, Inc.
......Kentucky, 166 U.S. 171, 17 S.Ct. 527, 41 L.Ed. 960; Adams Express Company v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194, 17 S.Ct. 305, 41 L.Ed. 683; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Backus, 154 U.S. 439, 14 S.Ct. 1122, 38 L.Ed. 1041; Western Union Telegraph Company v. Attorney ......