Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Alabama City

• Decision Date: 28 June 1902
• Citation: 134 Ala. 414,32 So. 731
• Parties: NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. ALABAMA CITY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 731

134 Ala. 414

NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. ALABAMA CITY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 28, 1902

Appeal from city court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge.

Action by Alabama City against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was a suit by the city of Alabama City, against the appellant, to recover several sums alleged to be due to the plaintiff for license or privilege tax for the defendant engaging in the business in Alabama City to operating its railroad therein, for the transportation of freight and passengers, one or both, to points in the state of Alabama and from other points in the state of Alabama to Alabama City; it being averred in each of the counts of the complaint claiming the privilege tax of $50 for each of the years in which the plaintiff failed to take out a license, that the defendant had not paid said amount as required by the ordinance of the plaintiff.

The complaint contained three counts, setting out the facts as above stated. The third count of the complaint did not set out the ordinance of the city upon which the claim suit was based, but it stated the substance of the ordinance and averred its violation by the plaintiff. The defendant demurred to the complaint and to each count thereof upon the ground that it did not set out in full the ordinance or ordinances under which the amount sued for or claimed to be due. This demurrer was overruled, and thereupon the defendants pleaded the general issue and several special pleas. The second plea was in words and figures as follows "(2) That it has not been engaged in the business of running cars through or into Alabama City for the business of transporting freight or passengers one or both from Alabama City to other points in this state, and from other points in this state to Alabama City, but that it runs its trains through the corporate limits of said Alabama City for the purpose of transporting freight and passengers from points outside of Alabama City to other points in this state and other states, (and that it has neither an agent nor an office in said Alabama City, and has not had since the enactment of the ordinances referred to in the complaint)."

By the third plea, the defendant set up that the ordinance was in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, in that the enforcement of the ordinance would deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law, because the defendant has not since the enactment of the ordinance referred to derived a sufficient revenue from the transportation of freight and passengers from Alabama City to other points in the state, and from other points in the state to Alabama City to pay its actual operating expenses.

In the fourth plea the defendant set up that the enforcement of the ordinances referred to in the complaint against the defendant would be in violation of article 1 of section 10 of the constitution of the United States, because it would impair the obligation of the contract, in that the defendant had obtained through the legislature of Alabama the right to run its trains through the territory embraced within the corporate limits of Alabama City, and the enforcement of said ordinance would prohibit the exercise of the privilege granted it by its charter.

In the fifth plea the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff has no authority under its charter to exact a license tax from this defendant for running its trains through the corporate limits of said city.

In the sixth plea the defendant set up that the enforcement of said ordinance was an interference with interstate commerce.

Plaintiff moved to strike out that portion of the second plea which is within the parentheses, upon the ground that it seeks to present an immaterial and irrelevant issue, and because it was frivolous and impertinent. To each of the other pleas the plaintiff demurred upon the ground that no one of said pleas set up an answer to the complaint, and that they presented an immaterial issue and that the facts therein set up were not in violation of the constitution of the United States, nor was it an interference with interstate commerce. These demurrers were sustained. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts. In this agreed statement of facts it was admitted that the defendant was operating a railroad through Alabama City, and was engaged in both state and interstate commerce, and that the defendant had no agent within the corporate limits of Alabama City, nor has it ever had, nor has it had a depot building there for the reception of its freight or passengers; that no tickets are or have been sold to passengers to or...