Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Morton County, a Municipal Corporation

• Citation: 156 N.W. 226,32 N.D. 627
• Decision Date: 13 December 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

156 N.W. 226

32 N.D. 627

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. MORTON COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 13, 1915

Rehearing denied February 5, 1916.

Cross Appeals from the District Court of Morton County, Nuessle Special Judge.

Modified and affirmed.

Cross appeal of the state sustained, and judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. State recovered its costs on appeal.

Watson & Young, for plaintiff and for the Elevator Company, and Miller, Zuger, & Tollotson, for the Lumber Yard and Oil Sites.

A contemporaneous and practical construction of either a constitution or a statute is entitled to great, if not controlling, weight. Cooley, Const. Lim. 4th ed. pp. 81-86; Gaar-S. & Co. v. Sorum, 11 N.D. 164, 90 N.W. 799; Wiles v. McIntosh County, 10 N.D. 594, 88 N.W. 710; Northern P. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 N.D. 310, 51 N.W 386; Barrett v. Stutsman County, 4 N.D. 175, 59 N.W 964; State ex rel. Edgerly v. Currie, 3 N.D. 310, 55 N.W. 858; State ex rel. McCue v. Blaisdell, 18 N.D. 31, 119 N.W. 360.

The assessment now proposed would constitute double taxation, and in a case where there is nothing either in the Constitution or the statutes which would authorize it. Cooley, Taxn. 1st ed. 165, 166.

Railway right of way or station grounds temporarily occupied do not cease to be railroad property devoted to public use. The mere fact that they are so used for platforms, yards, warehouses and buildings, though these may serve the convenience of others, does not change this rule. York & M. Line R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. 30, 39, 15 L. ed. 27, 29; Beman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. N. S. 550, 20 L. J. Ch. N. S. 537, 15 Jur. 914; Winch v. Birkenhead, L. & C. J. R. Co. 13 Eng. L. & Eq. Rep. 506; Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co. 24 How. 257, 16 L. ed. 635; East Alabama R. Co. v. Doe, 114 U.S. 340, 29 L. ed. 136, 5 S.Ct. 869; Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co. 101 U.S. 71, 83, 25 L. ed. 950, 952; Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 175 U.S. 91, 99, 44 L. ed. 84, 88, 20 S.Ct. 33; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U.S. 454, 468, 23 L. ed. 356, 361; Gurney v. Minneapolis Union Elevator Co. 63 Minn. 70, 30 L.R.A. 534, 65 N.W. 136; Const. § 179; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Cass County, 8 N.D. 18, 76 N.W. 239.

A "roadway" within the Constitution, providing for taxation of the franchise, roadway, etc., includes not only the strip of land on which the main line is constructed, but all grounds necessary for the construction of side tracks, turnouts, freight houses, connecting tracks, station houses, and other accommodations reasonably necessary to accomplish the object of their incorporation. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Oppegard, 18 N.D. 1, 118 N.W. 830; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Cass County, 8 N.D. 18, 76 N.W. 239; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Dickey County, 11 N.D. 107, 9 N.W. 260; Laws 1891, chap. 126; State ex rel. Stoeser v. Brass, 2 N.D. 482, 52 N.W. 408, 153 U.S. 391, 38 L. ed. 757, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 S.Ct. 857; Gurney v. Minneapolis Union Elevator Co. 63 Minn. 70, 30 L.R.A. 534, 65 N.W. 136; Roby v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 142 N.Y. 176, 36 N.E. 1053; Peirce v. Boston & L. R. Corp. 141 Mass. 481, 6 N.E. 96; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U.S. 454, 23 L. ed. 356; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Wathen, 17 Ill.App. 582; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. v. Douglas County, 159 Wis. 408, 150 N.W. 422; State ex rel. Milwaukee Street R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 63 N.W. 746; Washburn v. Washburn Waterworks Co. 120 Wis. 575, 98 N.W. 539; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. State, 128 Wis. 619, 108 N.W. 557; Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Douglas County, 122 Wis. 273, 99 N.W. 1030; Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Bayfield County, 87 Wis. 188, 58 N.W. 245; Superior Bd. of Trade v. Great Northern R. Co. 1 Wis. R. C. R. 619.

In states where the "roadway" or the right of way is assessed by a state assessing board, and other railroad property is assessed by local assessing officers or boards, it is a matter of some importance to know what is meant by this term. In this state it includes not only the strip of ground on which the main line is located, but also all ground necessary for the construction of side tracks, turnouts, station houses, freight houses, and all other accommodations reasonably necessary to accomplish the objects for which the railroad was incorporated. 2 Elliott, Railroads, §§ 738, 745; State ex rel. Stoeser v. Brass, 2 N.D. 482, 52 N.W. 408, affirmed in 153 U.S. 391, 38 L. ed. 757, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 S.Ct. 857.

Property used in connection with a carrier's business as such is assessable by the state board of equalization, and not by the local authorities. It is held in states having like statutes to ours, that grain elevators and other similar property fall within the designation or railway property used in a carrier's business. Herter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 114 Iowa 330, 86 N.W. 266; Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Douglas County, 122 Wis. 273, 99 N.W. 1030; Detroit Union R. Depot & Station Co. v. Detroit, 88 Mich. 347, 50 N.W. 302; State v. Jersey City, N.J.L. , 9 A. 782; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Crawford County, 48 Wis. 666, 5 N.W. 3; Auditor General v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 114 Mich. 682, 72 N.W. 992; Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Bayfield County, 87 Wis. 188, 58 N.W. 245; Board of Equalization v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 139 Ky. 386, 109 S.W. 303; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N.Y. 238.

"It is well settled that assessors, in making assessments in all cases where they have jurisdiction, act judicially." Swift v. Poughkeepsie, 37 N.Y. 511; Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N.Y. 238; Buffalo & S. L. R. Co. v. Erie County, 48 N.Y. 105.

"The assessors in determining whether the plaintiff's property was taxable as a dwelling, or exempt as a seminary of learning, act judicially and within the sphere of their duty." Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N.Y. 381; Van Rensselaer v. Witbeck, 7 Barb. 133; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. 27 F. 14; Harrington v. Glidden, 179 Mass. 486, 88 Am. St. Rep. 613, 61 N.E. 55, 189 U.S. 255, 47 L. ed. 798, 23 S.Ct. 574; Anniston City Land Co. v. State, 185 Ala. 482, 64 So. 110; 37 Cyc. 1072; Coulter v. Louisville Bridge Co. 114 Ky. 42, 70 S.W. 29; Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Com. 115 Ky. 278, 72 S.W. 1119.

The action of such officers is conclusive. Coulter v. Louisville Bridge Co. 114 Ky. 42, 70 S.W. 29; Swift v. Poughkeepsie, 37 N.Y. 511; Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Denio, 117; Vail v. Owen, 19 Barb. 22; Brown v. Smith, 24 Barb. 419; People ex rel. Mygatt v. Chenango County, 11 N.Y. 573; Easton v. Calendar, 11 Wend. 90; Hill v. Sellick, 21 Barb. 207; Fawcett v. Dole, 67 N.H. 168, 29 A. 693; Meade v. Haines, 81 Mich. 261, 45 N.W. 836.

The findings of the state board of equalization cannot be impeached collaterally. Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. v. Adams, 77 Miss. 764, 25 So. 355; Robertson v. Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Co. 238 Ill. 344, 87 N.E. 373; National Docks R. Co. v. State Assessors, 64 N.J.L. 486, 45 A. 783.

"The supreme court will not allow a thing to be taxed in specie where it has been taxed already, but under an improper name, since that would be double taxation." Panola County v. Carrier, 92 Miss. 148, 45 So. 426; State ex rel. Pearson v. Louisiana & M. River R. Co. 196 Mo. 523, 94 S.W. 279; Com. v. Maysville & B. S. R. Co. 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1332, 91 S.W. 1139; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U.S. 1. 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 S.Ct. 1073.

Wm. Langer, State's Attorney, and George E. Wallace, for the State Tax Commission, defendant-appellant.

Local officials have authority to tax industrial sites on railway right of way. "Should any railroad allow any portion of its roadway to be used for any purpose other than the operation of a railroad thereon, such portion of its roadway, while so used, shall be assessed in the manner provided for the assessment of other real property." Const. art. 4.

Railroad property held under a lease for a term of years, and not taxed as other property, shall be considered for all purposes of taxation as the property of the person so holding the lease. Comp. Laws 1913, § 2118.

If the property is used for railroad purposes or for the operation of a railroad, it is not to be taxed locally; if used for any other purpose, it will be taxed locally. Trustees of Academy v. Bohler, 80 Ga. 159, 7 S.E. 633.

Where corporate property which is assessed only by the central state authorities is rented out for profit, the exemption from local taxation is lost. Illinois C. R. Co. v People, 119 Ill. 137, 6 N.E. 451; Re Swigert, 119 Ill. 83, 59 Am. Rep. 789, 6 N.E. 469; Farmers' Bank v. Henderson, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 454; St. Louis County v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 45 Minn. 510, 48 N.W. 334; State ex rel. Hayes v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 135 Mo. 618, 37 S.W. 532; State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 117 Mo. 1, 22 S.W. 910; State, Camden & A. R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutors, v. Mansfield, 23 N.J.L. 510, 57 Am. Dec. 409; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutors, v. Newark, 27 N.J.L. 185, 26 N.J.L. 519; New York Guaranty & Indemnity Co. v. Tacoma R. & Motor Co. 35 C. C. A. 192, 93 F. 51; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Irvin, 72 Ill. 452; Pacific Coast R. Co. v. Ramage, 4 Cal. Unrep. 743, 37 P. 532; St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Devereux, 41 F. 14; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Newark, 60 N.J.L. 60, 37 A. 629; State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 48 Md. 49; Toll-Bridge Co. v. Osborn, 35 Conn. 7; Hennepin County v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 42 Minn. 238, 44 N.W. 63; Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Crawford County, 29 Wis. 116; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U.S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 S.Ct. 1073; Le Blanc v. Illinois C. R. Co. 72 Miss. 669, 18 So. 381; Chicago &...