Memphis Gas-Light Co. v. State

Decision Date30 April 1869
PartiesMemphis Gas-Light Company v. The State.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

FROM MEMPHIS.

At the ______ Term, 1868, there was a judgment against the Memphis Gas-light Company for taxes assessed upon their gaspipes, laid through the streets of Memphis to convey gas to the consumers of the gas manufactured by the company; from which they appealed. Judge JAMES O. PIERCE, presiding.

W. Y. C. HUMES and POSTON, for the Company.

WM. M. RANDOLPH, for the State.

GEORGE ANDREWS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case, is, whether the Memphis Gaslight Company is liable for a tax upon the assessed valuation of the main and service pipes, owned and used by it for the purpose of conveying and distributing the gas manufactured by the company, through the City of Memphis.

The right to tax this property is claimed under sec. 541 of the Code, which provides that, “all saw, grist, and other mills, distilleries, breweries, founderies, forges, establishments for mining, quarrying, making gins or carriages, and other manufacturing establishments,” shall be taxable.

If the pipes laid down by this company are properly to be considered as part of a “manufacturing establishment,” then the tax in question is properly assessed. It is not denied that the lot actually occupied by the works of the company, with its buildings furnaces, reservoirs and fixtures, is liable to taxation under the above recited provisions of the statute, but it is insisted that the pipes used for conveying the manufactured gas to the consumers, and laid down, not upon the land of the company, but through and under the public streets of the city, are not a part of the manufacturing establishment.

Pipes laid through the streets of the city, in the manner above mentioned, by permission of the corporate authorities, do not become the property of the city, or a part of the realty. They are personal property, and the property of the company.

In order that a particular article or class of articles should constitute a part of a manufacturing establishment, it is not essential that they be actually employed in the process of manufacture. The establishment includes, also, all the usual and necessary appliances for storing, measuring, weighing, packing, and delivering the manufactured article, after the process of manufacture is completed. Thus the tanks or reservoirs, and the principal meter of a gas company, used for storing and measuring the gas...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Zirkle v. City of Kingston
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1965
    ...of the appellants that the reverse condemnation statute aforesaid contemplates only land condemnation, the case of Memphis Gaslight Company v. State, 46 Tenn. 310 (1869), is cited. This case involved the taxation of gas pipes laid through the streets of a city, and in that case the Court he......
  • Selected Investments Corp. v. City of Lawton
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1956
    ...its contention that they became a part of the realty by being buried therein; however, in this connection, see Memphis Gaslight Co. v. State, 46 Tenn. 310, 98 Am.Dec. 452. As to defendant's liability for asserting, without right, dominion over, and ownership of, the water distribution syste......
  • Willard v. Pike
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1887
    ... ...          If the ... listers, the county, or state equalizing board failed in the ... performance of any essential requisite, or if proof failed to ... L. s. 270,--does not exempt the property of ... a purely private nature. Bank v. Memphis, 6 Bax ... (Tenn.) 615; S.C. 32 Am. Rep. 530; Church v ... Assessors, 12 R. I. 19; S. C. 34 ... pipes was personal merely," and cited ... Commonwealth v. Gas-Light Co. 94 Mass. 75, ... 12 Allen 75, and Memphis Gas-Light Co. v ... State , 46 Tenn. 310, 6 ... ...
  • State v. Leonard
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1869

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