European & N. Am. Ry. v. Maine Cent. R. Co.
Decision Date | 28 January 1938 |
Citation | 196 A. 642 |
Parties | EUROPEAN & NORTH AMERICAN RY. v. MAINE CENT. R. CO. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Report from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Action by the European & North American Railway against the Maine Central Railroad Company, wherein the issue was whether defendant as lessee was obligated to pay to plaintiff as lessor the income tax assessed upon rental received by plaintiff, which case came to the Supreme Judicial Court on a report.
Judgment ordered in accordance with opinion.
Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, HUDSON, and MANSER, JJ.
George F. Eaton, of Bangor, and Cook, Hutchinson, Pierce & Connell, of Portland, for plaintiff. Skelton & Mahon, of Lewiston, for defendant.
What is in issue in this case is whether or not the terms of a lease of a railroad obligate the defendant as lessee, to pay the plaintiff as lessor, the federal income tax assessed upon rental received by it.
In 1882, the European & North American Railway, a Maine corporation owning and then operating a line of railroad about 114 miles long, from Bangor to the easterly boundary of the State, in the town of Vanceboro, demised, for 999 years, beginning with April 1, in the aforesaid year, its entire system, to the Maine Central Railroad Company, also a corporation under local laws, and a common carrier by rail, this company's line coming into Bangor from the westward.
The lease was inclusive, not only of the lessor's road, its engines, cars, equipment, apparatus, and supplies, without exception, but as well of all its other property and assets, real, personal, and mixed, wheresoever, cash and causes of action falling into the category, together with all its rights, except only its right to be and maintain its organization.
The rent, set down in words, was $125,000 a year, payable in equal semi-annual installments, the first on October 1, in the year of 1882. Such rent was, so the clause reserving it recites, fixed at exactly 5 per cent. at the par value of the outstanding capital stock of the lessor. That the lessee should render accordingly, and compensate the lessor, in addition, as, to illustrate, for taxes, then in being, or not, laid against the demised property, or assessed on franchise, or earnings, is not in dispute. The controversy between these litigants, at the expense of repetition, solely relates to whether federal income tax, as applied to the rental, is for the lessee to defray.
The lease is, in itself, complete and perfect.
On taking possession, the lessee assumed, as the lease provided that it should, the lessor's obligations of any and every kind, and their performance, discharge, and satisfaction; the lessee proceeded to fulfill the lessor's duties as a public utility.
In effect, the lines of the two corporations were, for the purpose of operation, united as one. They so continue.
Certain provisions in the lease are of the tenor following:
* * *"
There is, it should not escape notice, in the obligations of the defendant, as lessee, no express mention of income taxes; there is no explicit reference to the possibility of the enactment by any taxing authority of an income tax law; nor, in the event of the enactment of a law of the kind, that a tax might be assessed against the plaintiff lessor.
No federal income tax was in force when the lease was made. Acts taxing incomes had, beginning in 1861, been enacted by the United States Congress. These acts lasted through the Civil War period. They were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 15, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, L.R.A.1917D, 414, Ann.Cas. 1917B, 713.
Under the Civil War Act, 13 Stat. 223, as amended, the tax on corporations was based on gross...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 4829.
...265 Pa. 325, 108 A. 528; Ehrlich v. Brogan, 262 Pa. 362, 105 A. 511; Van Beil v. Brogan, 65 Pa.Super. 384; European & North American Ry. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 135 Me. 338, 196 A. 642; Republic Building v. Gaertner, 201 Ky. 509, 256 S.W. 1111, 30 A.L.R. 982; National Bk. of Kentucky v. Mina......
-
Eastern Massachusetts, St. Ry. Co. v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...Providence Railroad Corp. v. Old Colony Railroad Co., 269 Mass. 190, 197, 169 N.E. 157, 159. Compare European & North American Railway v. Maine Central Railroad Co., 135 Me. 338, 196 A. 642. And there is nothing in the lease indicating that the amount of the rent thereby reserved was fixed ......