Little Rock Ft Ry v. Worthen Huntington v. Same

Decision Date24 January 1887
PartiesLITTLE ROCK & FT. S. RY. v. WORTHEN, Collector, etc., and others. In Error to the . HUNTINGTON and another, Trustees, v. SAME. 1 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

In the first of the above-entitled cases plaintiff, the Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway, is a corporation created under the laws of Arkansas, and operates a railroad from Little Rock to Fort Smith in that state, running through several counties in its route. The defendants are the sheriffs of those counties, and ex officio collectors of taxes therein. The suit was brought to enjoin them from collecting certain taxes assessed and levied for the year 1885 on what is termed in the revenue act of the state as the 'railroad track' of the corporation, upon the alleged ground that the board of railroad commissioners of the state exceeded its powers by including unauthorized elements in the estimate of its value. That t rm, 'railroad track,' embraces all fixed railroad property of the corporation, and is assessed for purposes of taxation as real estate.

In the second of the above-entitled cases the plaintiffs, who are citizens of Massachusetts, and trustees under a mortgage executed by the railway company upon its railroad and land grant, filed their bill of complaint against the same collectors to restrain the collection of the same taxes. Subsequently the bill was amended by joining the county clerks of the several counties on the line of the railway as defendants, with prayers for injunctions restraining them from doing the several acts which the revenue act requires them to perform in connection with and subsequently to the sale of the railroad track.

By a statute of Arkansas, passed in 1883, the governor, secretary of state, and auditor of public accounts were constituted a board of railroad commissioners for the state, and required on the first Monday of April of each year to ascertain the value of all property, real and personal, of every railroad company existing under the laws of the state, including therein the railroad track, rolling stock, water and wood stations, passenger and freight depots, offices and furniture; and it was made the duty of the company in March. The statute also required the board of railroad commissioners to meet on the first Monday of April in each year, at the office of the secretary of state, and examine the lists or schedules of the description and value of the railroad tracks of the railroad companies filed with the secretary of state; and if the schedules are made out in accordance with the provisions of the act, and, in the opinion of the board, the valuation of the railroad track is fair and reasonable, it shall appraise the same, and the secretary of state shall certify to the assessor of each county in which the railroad is located so much of the list as values the railroad track located in the county and in any city or town thereof, and the assessors shall list and assess the same as real estate.

The Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway, under this statute, made a return of the length of its main and side tracks, and of the value thereof, and of the improvements and structures, including the railroad track on its right of way, but omitted in its estimate the value of the embankments, tunnels, cuts, ties, trestles, and bridges, following in this respect the directions of the statute. At a subsequent meeting, the board passed a resolution declaring that all property of railroad companies in the state should be assessed at its true value, without regard to the restrictions and limitations mentioned, by which the value of the embankments, tunnels, cuts, ties, trestles, and bridges is excluded from the schedule of their property; that, after full examination and consultation, it had determined that such limitations and restrictions were unconstitutional, and that it was not bound thereby. The several railroad companies were therefore requested to render full statements of their property, of whatever kind or description, and the true value thereof without regard to the restrictions and limitations mentioned. A hearing was accorded to the companies by the board; but its conclusion was not changed, and it proceeded to include in the assessment of the railroad...

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • Lyons v. Bottolfsen
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1940
    ... ... Bird, 29 Idaho 47, 156 P. 1140; Little Rock & Fort ... Smith R. Co. v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 7 ... have a natural connection with the same subject they may be ... united [61 Idaho 289] in one ... ...
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1913
    ...U. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 52 L. Ed. 297; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294; Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97, 102, 7 Sup. Ct. 469, 30 L. Ed. 588. In arguing that the Legislature has undertaken to confer upon the board full judicial powers such as cannot be c......
  • State ex rel. Forman v. Wheatley
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1917
    ... ... twenty-six cents per acre, while the same class of lands in ... Rankin county are assessed at five ... overflow and are so broken as to be of little value. A large ... portion of Hinds county is made up of ... the board of supervisors in this proceeding. Huntington ... v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97, 30 L.Ed. 588; State of Utah ... ...
  • Reitz v. Mealey, 28886.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • August 14, 1940
    ...part is clearly `separable' (Berea College v. Kentucky 211 U.S. 45, 29 S.Ct. 33, 53 L.Ed. 81, supra; Huntington v. Worthen 120 U.S. 97, 7 S.Ct. 469, 30 L.Ed. 588, supra). In all the cases cited, and in many more, where a constitutional provision has been `separated' and saved, although cont......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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