Columbus Southern Ry Co v. Wright
Decision Date | 29 January 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 753,753 |
Parties | COLUMBUS SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. WRIGHT, Comptroller General |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. A. Nimbish, for plaintiff in error.
Clifford Anderson and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The question presented by the record in this case is whether an act of the legislature of Georgia approved October 16 1889, entitled 'An act to provide a system of taxation of railroad property in each of the counties of this state through which said railroads run, and to provide a mode of assessing and collecting the same, and for other purposes,' violates that clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States which declares that 'no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.'
The act complained of provides as follows:
By an act approved in 1874 provision was made for the taxation of railroad property for state purposes, but this act of 1889 was the first statute enacted providing for the taxation of railroad property for county purposes.
The plaintiff in error is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Georgia, having its principal office or domicile in the city of Columbus, Muscogee county, in that state, with its line of railway extending through the counties of Chattahoochee, Stewart, Terrell, Webster, and Lee, to the city of Albany, in the county of Dougherty. With the exception of its right of way, roadbed, superstructure, depots, and usual appurtenances along the line of its road, the undistributed property of the corporation, such as its choses in action, etc., is situated in Muscogee county.
Under the provisions of the first section of the act, set out above, the railroad company made return of its property for the year 1890. Upon the basis of that return the comptroller general of the state assessed and levied taxes for the benefit of the several counties through which the railroad extended, (after such counties had certified to him their respective tax rate and levies,) and on October 27, 1890, notified the company that the taxes so levied must be paid to the respective tax collectors of the several counties within 60 days from the date of the notice.
The tax rate upon the property thus assessed, as stated in the notice of the comptroller general, was different in the different counties. For Muscogee county it was 2 1/2 mills, for Chattahoochee it was 8 mills, for Stewart it was 5 mills, for Terrell it was 5.34 mills, and for Webster county it was 3.47 mills; these rates of taxation being imposed by the respective counties on other property situate therein and subject to taxation.
Before the expiration of the 60 days, within which the railroad company was required to make payment of the taxes thus assessed, it filed its bill or equitable petition in the superior court of Fulton county against William A. Wright, comptroller general, for an injunction, and relief against the payment of these county taxes.
In the petition it was alleged that the act was repugnant to the constitution of the state of Georgia, for various reasons: First, that it was inconsistent with that provision of the constitution which required that 'all taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects and ad valorem on all property subject to be taxed within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax;' second, that the act was a special one, whereas the constitution required that all taxes should be levied and collected under general laws; third, that the act provided for a tax to be levied and collected by the state for the benefit of the counties, when the state had no authority, under the constitution, to tax for such a purpose; fourth, that the act embraced two subjects-matter, viz. the 'property of certain railroads' and also the 'net incomes as to certain other railroads,' while the constitution declares that 'no law or ordinance shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter;' fifth, because the affidavit of illegality which a railroad company was authorized to file against an execution to collect the taxes authorized by the statute was required to be filed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... Ed., 1035); ... Grozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657 (13 S.Ct. 721; 37 L ... Ed., 599); Columbus Southern Ry. Co. v. W 14 S.Ct ... 396 (38 L.Ed. 238); Merchant v. Railroad Co., 153 ... U.S ... ...
-
Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Flora Drug Co
... ... R. C. L. 518; Wingfield v. South Carolina Tax ... Commission, 144 S.E. 846; Columbus Southern Ry. Co. v ... Wright, 151. U.S. 469, 38 L.Ed. 238 ... An ... excise tax is ... ...
-
In re Arkansas Rate Cases
... ... TRIEBER, ... District Judge ... The St ... Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, which will ... be referred to herein as the Iron Mountain Railway, and the ... 790; Pullman Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18, 11 ... Sup.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed. 613; Columbus, Southern Railway Co ... v. Wright, 151 U.S. 470, 14 Sup.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed. 238; ... ...
- Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. State