Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. v. State Board of Appraisers

• Decision Date: 30 March 1914
• Docket Number: 19,984
• Citation: 135 La. 69,64 So. 985
• Parties: LOUISIANA & A. RY. CO. v. STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

64 So. 985

135 La. 69

LOUISIANA & A. RY. CO. v. STATE BOARD OF APPRAISERS

No. 19,984

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 30, 1914

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1914

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Article 230 of the Constitution, exempting from taxation for a period of ten years those railroads built prior to 1904, was intended to encourage enterprises of some importance and was never intended to apply to a private logging railroad, or a tramway.

The constitutional amendment adopted in 1904 (Acts 1904, No. 16) providing for the exemption from taxation of certain railroads also provides that the right of exemption shall follow the railroad into whoever's hands it may come and, while the niceties of grammar may not have been observed in drawing it, the intent is plain and will not be disregarded in the interest of fine grammatical distinctions.

While it is true that tax exemption is subject to strict construction, the evidence shows that only half of the defendant's road was constructed prior to April 1, 1901, and as to this part it is not now within the exemption period of ten years.

Henry Moore, of Texarkana, Ark., and H. H. White and R. F. White, both of Alexandria, for appellant.

R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and Harry Gamble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Statement of the Case.

PROVOSTY, J., takes no part, not having heard the argument.

OPINION

BREAUX, C. J.

The plaintiff complains of a judgment rendered against it in a suit brought against defendant to cancel the assessment upon its property.

The Louisiana & Arkansas Railroad Company and the Arkansas-Louisiana & Southern Railway Company were consolidated into one under the name of the Louisiana & Arkansas Railroad Company.

Plaintiff through learned counsel states that one section of its road measures 17.35 miles from Cotton Valley to Minden in Webster parish; 16.92 miles from Ashland to the Saline Bayou in Natchitoches parish; 8 miles of road from Minden to one mile beyond Malcolm in Webster parish.

The first tract above mentioned was built by the Arkansas-Louisiana & Southern Railway Company after the adoption of the Constitution of 1898 and was completed in 1899.

Plaintiff's claim is that it was entitled to exemption from taxation for the years from 1899 to and including 1908.

It appears that the Arkansas-Louisiana & Southern was organized October 23, 1897, and the Louisiana & Arkansas Railroad Company March 18, 1898, and these two were consolidated June 14, 1900.

Plaintiff road was organized June 2, 1902.

The Louisiana & Arkansas Railroad and the Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company were consolidated August 19, 1902.

In all the changes made, there were no sales but consolidations. The assessment for 1908 is the assessment of which plaintiff particularly complains as to part of the track. Plaintiff's contention is that the 16.92 miles of road were not completed until April 1, 1902, while defendant's contention is that a portion of it was completed in 1900 and 1901 and that such portion is subject to the taxes of 1911 and 1912.

The question as to taxes of 1908 is considered later.

Plaintiff states as to this particular road of 16.92 miles that a dump was built and steels laid during 1901 by the Stamp Construction Company. It is stated by plaintiff that this is a separate corporation doing construction work under a contract to construct and deliver the road to plaintiff company, and plaintiff states that this road was used for freight and passengers the first time April 1, 1902; while the dump had been built and steel laid on this section December 31, 1901, the surfacing was not completed until April 1, 1902. That 50 per cent. of the surfacing was done prior to December 1, 1902, and 50 per cent. between that date and April 1, 1902, and that in reality the road was not completed and subject to assessment before April 1, 1902.

The defendant, on the other hand, claims as soon as any part of the section had been built, equipped, and ties and steel laid and surfaced, there was a completion pro tanto.

Another section of 17.35 miles from Ashland through Goldana also gives rise to the question for decision. We are to determine whether or not it was proper to assess this road for the years 1911 and 1912. This will suffice for the purpose of the decision.

Opinion.

In the first place, defendant's contention is that the Minden Company East and West is not exempt, for it was only a log road, and that it never acquired exemption, and therefore transferred no exemption to plaintiff; that it was absorbed by plaintiff in 1909 and lost all identity.

We have arrived at the conclusion that it was as alleged by defendant a log road; it surely did not carry passengers. Moreover, it was an entirely private enterprise as long as it was in the name of the Minden East & West Railroad Company, and before it was absorbed by purchase by the plaintiff company.

Article 272 of the Constitution defines highways, and does not include in its definition a mere private log train or tramway. We add tramway, because one would be as much entitled to exemption as the other; if the Minden road be exempt, it is not. The purpose of the exemption law was to encourage enterprises of some importance, and not tramways. Such a tramway as the one here is not exempt.

We take up the second issue of the case as numbered by defendant. It relates to the state board's action in assessing plaintiff's road for the back taxes of 1908 and relates to the stretch of 17.35 miles between Cotton Valley and Minden. The Arkansas-Louisiana & Southern Railway Company lost its exemption at the time that it was consolidated with plaintiff is the contention of the board of appraisers -- the plaintiff. We take it that the state is not entitled to the taxes for the year 1908 on this section; the objection is principally (as to 1908) that the road lost all exemption and was without right in the consolidation to transfer exemption from taxation. We think plaintiff still retained the right. That ground was considered in the decision of the Rock Island v. State Board of Appraisers (No. 19,953) 63 So. 262. The decision although criticized by learned counsel for the state, will have to remain as it is for the present at least and until additional light is brought to bear upon the subject which would render it evident that it should be...