Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kootenai County

• Decision Date: 17 December 1910
• Parties: NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., Appellant, v. COUNTY OF KOOTENAI et al., Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

112 P. 320

19 Idaho 75

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., Appellant, v. COUNTY OF KOOTENAI et al., Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 17, 1910

REVENUE-ASSESSMENT-RAILROAD PROPERTY-RAILROAD TRACK-SECOND TRACK-JURISDICTION OF STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Under the provisions of secs. 1710 to 1715, inclusively, of the Rev. Codes of this state, it is provided that all railroad property used in connection with maintaining and operating a main track or main line of railroad, including the right of way, stations and superstructures upon the right of way, sidetracks, switches, turnouts, "second tracks," "rolling stock" and franchises within the state, shall be estimated and valued together as a whole for the full length of the line within the state, and that the total valuation so ascertained shall be divided by the total number of miles of "main track" or "main line" in ascertaining a uniform valuation per mile for the full length of such main line or main track within the state and in each county, city, incorporated town or assessment district, and that each mile thereof shall bear the same valuation as every other mile of such "main line" or "main track."

2. The state board of equalization in valuing and assessing railroad property under the provisions of the statute of this state (secs. 1710-1715, inclusive, Rev. Codes) are authorized directed and required to value and assess "main line or main track," and to cause such valuation and assessment to be certified to the auditors of the several counties, and they have no power or authority to separately value and assess "second track" as a separate and independent railroad property or to certify such an assessment.

3. Where it appears that the state board by error or mistake have failed to include an item of railroad property designated as 5.67 miles of "second track" within the total valuation of the property of such company for the purpose of ascertaining the valuation per mile to be placed on the main track of such road, but, on the contrary, have certified the same down as an independent assessment, and the railroad company seeks to remove the cloud of such invalid assessment from its property and to enjoin and restrain the taxing officers from collecting such tax or holding a lien therefor against the property, and it appears that the company has not in fact paid its proportionate part of taxes for the year upon such piece or parcel of property, it will be required to do equity before it can take a decree clearing its title, and must accordingly pay to the county the proportionate share of taxes on the specific piece of property to which the county would have been entitled by reason of the total mileage or main line of road within its borders had the state board of equalization complied with the statute in including the valuation of such property within the total valuation of the railroad company's property.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, in and for the County of Kootenai. Hon. Robert N. Dunn, Judge.

Action by the plaintiff to quiet its title and remove a cloud from its property and enjoin and restrain taxing officers from collecting a tax or holding the same as a lien against plaintiff's property. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded, with direction. Costs awarded in favor of appellant.

Edward J. Cannon, James E. Babb and R. L. Black, for Appellant.

The state board of equalization has no power to assess for taxation the 5.67 miles of "second track" in question, and the certification of that assessment to Kootenai county and the tax levied upon the rolls of that county for 1909 was a nullity. (State ex rel. Morton v Back, 72 Neb. 402, 100 N.W. 952, 69 L. R. A. 447; Railway Co. v. Wright, 151 U.S. 470, 14 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed. 238; Sanford v. Poe, 165 U.S. 194, 17 S.Ct. 305, 41 L.Ed. 683; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U.S. 185, 17 S.Ct. 604, 41 L.Ed. 965.)

The sidetracks and switch track off the main right of way are wholly useless when disassociated from the main lines. They are indissolubly connected with the main line and one cannot be operated without the other. They are a unit in value and operation. (Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Patterson (Tenn.), 122 S.W. 473.)

The state board is a mere creature of the statute, possessing only statutory powers and a limited jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction to assess any property of a railroad company, save as the statute confers that right upon it, and it can assess only such property of railroad companies as the statute provides those companies shall make return of to the auditor. (Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., p. 787, note 3; Nashville & D. R. Co. v. State, 129 Ala. 142, 30 So. 619.)

The state cannot maintain an action against an owner for taxes until a valid assessment has been made against the property. (Clegg v. State, 42 Tex. 610; Flanagan v. Dunne, 105 F. 828, 45 C. C. A. 81; Gray, Limitations of Taxing Power and Public Indebtedness, pp. 625, 626.)

Appellant, prior to commencement of the action, paid all of its taxes which it conceded were due, and all which were not involved in the legal questions submitted, so that it is entitled now, if the court should hold that more tax is due from it than it conceded, to pay the balance and have a decree in its favor against such portion as may be held illegal. (Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Board of Commrs., 67 F. 413, 14 C. C. A. 458; Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Maher, 32 Mont. 480, 81 P. 13; People's Nat. Bank v. Marye, 191 U.S. 272, 24 S.Ct. 68, 48 L.Ed. 180; First Nat. Bank v. Covington, 103 F. 523.)

C. H. Potts, for Respondents.

The 5.67 miles of second track of said railway company is subject to taxation, and it is apparent that the state board of equalization did not take the value thereof into consideration in placing a value upon the mileage of the main track of said railroad company, and the assessment of the same as second track is a difference in form only and not in substance, and should be upheld. (Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Board, 172 U.S. 32, 43 L.Ed. 354.)

AILSHIE, J. Sullivan, C. J., concurs.

OPINION

AILSHIE, J.

This is an action that was instituted by the Northern Pacific Ry. Co. to quiet its title to 5.67 miles of its railway track and remove the cloud therefrom, and to enjoin and restrain the taxing officers from proceeding further for the collection of a tax levied and assessed against the property. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the company thereupon appealed.

It seems that in the year 1909 the state board of equalization valued and assessed the property of the Northern Pacific Ry. Co., and caused the same to be certified by the state auditor to the auditor of Kootenai county as follows:

"RAILWAY LINES.

Counties--

Rate per

Valuation.

Total

Kootenai.

Mileage.

Mile.

Valuation.

Northern Pacific

Railway Co.

24.34

16,000

389,440

Northern Pacific

Railway Co., Ft.

Sherman Branch

13.65

6,500

88,725

Northern Pacific

Railway Co.,

'Second Track'

5.67

8,000

45,360."

The auditor of Kootenai county thereupon caused the same to be extended on the assessment-books of the county for the year 1909 as follows:

"STATEMENT OF TAXES OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY FOR 1909.

24.34 miles of main line, $ 16,000; total, $ 389,440 . . . . 'Second Track' 5.67 miles, $ 8,000 per mile; Total value, $ 45,360."

The appellant paid its taxes on all the property assessed against it except this 5.67 miles of "second track." It now contends that the state board of equalization had no authority, power or jurisdiction to assess separately and as such any mileage whatever of "second track," and that the assessment and certification of the same was without jurisdiction, and furnishes no authority whatever for the taxing officer to collect the same or hold it against the company as a lien, cloud or encumbrance on its property.

The statutes of the state bearing on the subject are as follows:

Sec. 1710, Rev. Codes, provides that, "The state board of equalization shall have exclusive power to assess and value for purposes of taxation all telegraph and telephone lines and the 'railroad track' and 'rolling stock' and franchises of all persons, companies, or corporations owning, operating or constructing any telegraph or telephone lines, or railroads wholly or partly within this state. For the purposes of this chapter, 'railroad track' shall be deemed to include the right of way, station and other necessary grounds, superstructures upon such right of way, station and other grounds, and all other immovable property used, operated, or occupied by any person, company or corporation, owning, operating or constructing any line of railroad, wholly or partly within this state, and reasonably necessary to the maintenance and operation of such road." Then follows the definition of what shall constitute "rolling stock," and this in turn is followed by the direction that all property belonging to railroad corporations not included within the terms "railroad track" or "rolling stock" shall be assessed by the county assessor as other property is assessed within the county.

Sec 1713, Rev. Codes...