Moody v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 19 May 1899
• Citation: 53 N.E. 891,173 Mass. 375
• Parties: MOODY et al. v. SHAW.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

173 Mass. 375

53 N.E. 891

MOODY et al. v. SHAW.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 19, 1899

COUNSEL

Edward I. Baker, for appellants.

M.M. Knowlton, Atty. Gen., and A.W. De Goosh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

This case is disposed of by the recent decision in Greves v. Shaw, 53 N.E. 372, except so far as the Boston & Albany Railroad stock is concerned. That railroad company is a corporation formed by the consolidation of Massachusetts and New York corporations, and owning tracks in Massachusetts and New York. Much the greater part of the property, and the more powerful of the consolidated corporations, being also the original bearer of the present corporate name, belonged to the former state, and, in view of the facts and the language of the consolidating statutes, if the corporation were to be attributed only to one state, that state would be Massachusetts. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T.H.R. Co., 118 U.S. 290, 296, 6 Sup.Ct. 1094. But it seems to us enough to say that so long as the railroad holds a Massachusetts charter so long can Massachusetts prescribe the payment of this tax as a condition of the right to succeed to stock issued under that charter. It does not matter that there is also a New York charter, and that, as things are now, stock issued under one is also stock under the other. The fact that it is so is a privilege granted by the two states reciprocally. But whenever either state has an interest in distinguishing between the two franchises, it has a right to do so. See Railroad Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 297; Memphis & C.R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U.S. 581, 585, 2 Sup.Ct. 432; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 451, 452, 2 Sup.Ct. 878; Nashua & L.R. Corp. v. Boston & L.R. Corp., 136 U.S. 356, 379, 380, 10 Sup.Ct. 1004; Martin's Adm'r v. Railroad Co., 151 U.S. 673, 677, 14 Sup.Ct. 533; Railway Co. v. James, 161 U.S. 545, 16 Sup.Ct. 621; Central Pac. R. Co. v. People, 162 U.S. 91, 16 Sup.Ct. 766. The fact that all rights are represented by one certificate might possibly create difficulties as to apportionment where important fractions of the property were in different states, but it would not affect the principle. Quincy Railroad Bridge Co. v. Adams Co., 88 Ill. 615, 619, et seq.; Railroad Co. v. Weber, 96 Ill. 443.

Decree affirmed.