Comstock v. Grand Rapids

• Decision Date: 23 September 1884
• Citation: 54 Mich. 641,20 N.W. 623
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COMSTOCK v. GRAND RAPIDS.

20 N.W. 623

54 Mich. 641

COMSTOCK v. GRAND RAPIDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 23, 1884

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids.

Everett D. Comstock, for plaintiff.

J.W Ransom, for defendant.

COOLEY C.J.

Plaintiff sued the city of Grand Rapids to recover the amount of certain taxes assessed against him for the years 1879, 1880 1881, and 1882, and which he had paid under protest. The suit was brought in the superior court of Grand Rapids, and was tried by the judge without a jury. The following are the findings:

"FINDINGS OF FACT.

"(1) During the years 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882, the plaintiff was, and still is, a resident and citizen of the Fifth ward of the city of Grand Rapids, and owned and carried on a large manufacturing establishment in said Fifth ward, in which he manufactured pails, tubs, and other articles. (2) That during all the time aforesaid he owned and occupied for business purposes a warehouse near the Central Railroad depot, in the First ward of said city, wherein he stored temporarily his manufactured articles for the purpose of convenient shipping. (3) For the convenience of the plaintiff, and for its own profit, the Michigan Central Railroad Company had laid a track from its own road along and near the warehouse of the plaintiff, to facilitate the shipping of the wares and other manufactures of the plaintiff, so that cars could be run to and loaded at and from the said warehouse of the plaintiff. (4) In connection with the said warehouse was an office used by the plaintiff, on which was a sign consisting of the plaintiff's name. (5) The plaintiff was the owner of twenty (20) cars, which were used and employed by him exclusively for the purpose of shipping his manufactures to various parts of the world. These cars were run upon the track to the warehouse of the plaintiff, and loaded with the plaintiff's wares, and, by an engagement with the several railroad companies, transported to such points and places as the plaintiff desired, the plaintiff paying to the railroad companies freight charges, and the railroad companies paying to the plaintiff what they called wheel mileage. (6) The products of the plaintiff's manufacturing establishment, in the Fifth ward, were conveyed to the aforesaid warehouse of the plaintiff, in the First ward, in wagons used for that purpose, and sometimes the plaintiff's cars were loaded directly from the wagons, and sometimes from the said warehouse. (7) In the years 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882 the supervisor of the First ward listed and assessed these railroad cars, owned by the plaintiff, with other personal property of the plaintiff in said First ward, for the purpose of taxation, and made due return of his tax-rolls. (8) The assessment rolls of the county, with the cars listed and assessed thereon, came before the board of review of the city of Grand Rapids, and were affirmed, and the taxes thus assessed were collected for the several years named, and the amounts belonging to the city were paid into the city treasury. (9) The taxes paid by the plaintiff, as above specified, were paid by him under protest before any proceedings had been taken for their collection. (10) For the year 1882, after these cars had been assessed by the supervisor of the First ward, as usual, at the suggestion of the plaintiff, they were also assessed with other personal property of the plaintiff by the supervisor of the Fifth ward, of which the plaintiff was an inhabitant, and the tax thus assessed was paid by the plaintiff in both wards, under protest, before any proceedings were had for the collection of the tax. (11) The amount paid by the plaintiff was substantially as stated in the bill of particulars in this case.

"FINDINGS OF LAW.

"(1) I find as a matter of law, upon the facts in this case, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant, the city of Grand Rapids. (2) That judgment must be entered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff for costs of suit, to be taxed."

The plaintiff requested the trial judge to make certain amendments of his findings of facts, the most of which, as we view the case, were immaterial. One of these was that the cars were out of the city more than half the time, and that when in the city were some of the time in other wards than the First ward. Another was that the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company, in making to the auditor general its report of earnings for the purposes of taxation, did not exclude the earnings by these cars, and paid taxes upon such earnings. Plaintiff claims to recover in the case upon the grounds (1) that the cars were not assessable to him for taxation at all; and (2) that, if so assessable, it must have been in the Fifth ward of the city, which was the ward of his residence.

1. It is said that the railroad companies pay a tax in respect to these cars, and for that reason they cannot be assessed for taxation to the owner, since that would be duplicate taxation, and a violation of the constitutional rule of uniformity. This argument is based upon a fallacy. The railroad companies pay no tax upon these cars they pay a tax in respect of their earnings. Their earnings may be increased by the use they make of these cars, but that does not make the tax upon the increased earnings a tax upon the cars. The earnings are also increased by the carriage of particular articles of freight, but the tax upon the earnings is not a tax upon the freight, so as to entitle the owners of the freight to...