Pickard v. East Tenn Co

Citation32 L.Ed. 1051,9 S.Ct. 640,130 U.S. 637
PartiesPICKARD, State Comptroller, v. EAST TENN., V. & G. R. CO. 1
Decision Date13 May 1889
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

G. W. Pickle, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, for appellant.

Wm. M. Baxter, for appellee.

FIELD, J.

This is a suit to enjoin the collection of certain taxes for the years 1883 and 1884, assessed by the board of railroad tax assessors of Tennessee against the property of the complainant, the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company. The property formerly belonged to the Cincinnati, Cumberland Gap & Charleston Railroad Company; and the claim asserted by the bill is that the property, while held by that company, was exempt from taxation, and that such exemption has accompanied it in its transfer to the complainant. That company was incorporated by an act of the legislature of Tennessee, passed November 18, 1853. Among other things the act provided that whenever the company should have completed its road from Cumberland Gap to the East Tennessee and Virginia Railroad, or to the southern boundary line of the state, it should 'have all the rights and privileges' conferred by its charter for a period of 99 years. Acts Tenn. 1853-54, c. 301, § 6. It also declared that the company should be vested, except as otherwise provided by its charter, with 'all the rights, powers, and privileges, and subject to all the restrictions and liabilities, of the Nashville & Louisville Railroad Company.' An act was passed by the legislature of Tennessee on the 9th of February, 1850, to incorporate a company under this last name, which, among other things, declared 'that the capital stock in the said company, the dividends thereon, and the roads and Fixtures, depots, workshops, warehouses, and vehicles of transportation belonging to the said company, shall be forever exempt from taxation in each and every of the said states of Tennessee and Kentucky, and it shall not be lawful for either of the said states, or any corpor- ate or municipal, police or other authority thereof, or of any town, city, county, or district thereof, to impose any tax on such stock or dividends, property or estate.' Acts Tenn. 1849-50, c. 76, § 40. It does not appear that any organization of this company was ever perfected. It is stated by counsel that none ever took place, and it would seem that such was the conclusion of this court in Goodlett v. Railroad Co., 122 U.S. 391, 406, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1254.

Assuming, however, that its organization was perfected, its rights, powers, and privileges were subject to the restrictions specified in the act, and one of these was that the act should 'become a law whenever the state of Kentucky may enact the same for the same purpose, with such modifications and amendments' as she may deem right, not in consistent with its provisions. By this restriction we understand that the act was not to take effect until re-enacted by Kentucky, with such modifications as she might suggest, not inconsistent with it. It is conceded that Kentucky never passed any such act as here mentioned. We are of opinion, therefore, that we may properly omit from consideration the act of February 9, 1850, to incorporate the Nashville & Louisville Railroad Company, and the attempt to invest the Cincinnati, Cumberland Gap & Charleston Railroad Company with its 'rights, powers, and privileges.' If this construction be correct, the Nashville & Louisville Railroad Company never acquired under that act any rights, powers, or privileges, those designated in its charter being subject to restrictions, which were not complied with; and therefore, whatever right the Cincinnati, Cumberland Gap & Charleston Company possessed, to have its property exempted from taxation, must be found independently of the provision referring to and granting the exemption contained in the charter of the Nashville & Louisville Railroad Company. There is no such exemption from taxation in its own charter. It is, however, contended that provisions in an act of the legislature of the state, chartering the Lexington & Knoxville Railroad Company, passed on the 22d of December, 1853, had the effect of extending such exemption to the property of the Cincinnati, Cumberland Gap & Charleston Railroad Company, inasmuch as it invests that company with the 'rights, powers, and privileges' 'of the East Tennessee & Virginia Railroad Company.' Acts Tenn. 1853-54, c. 325, § 6. The act incorporating this last company declared that its capital stock should be forever exempt from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Adams v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 22, 1898
    ......Sanford, 164 U.S. 586, 587;. Norfolk, etc., v. Pendleton, 156 U.S. 672, 673;. Pickard v. E. T., V. & G. R. R. Co., 130 U.S. 640;. L., N. O. & T. Ry., v. Palmes, 109 U.S. 251, 252;. ... now outstanding shall be entitled to east one vote [77 Miss. 249] for each share of stock held by him in the. stockholders' meetings of the ......
  • County of Traverse v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • July 22, 1898
    ...Commrs., 112 U.S. 609; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 114 U.S. 176; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Palmes, 109 U.S. 244; Picard v. East Tenn., V. & G.R. Co., 130 U.S. 637; Wilmington & W.R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 146 U.S. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Gill, 156 U.S. 649; St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. S......
  • State v. Great Northern Railway Company
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • December 24, 1908
    ...Minn. 220, 221; Phoenix F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 174; Chicago, B. & K.C.R. Co. v. Guffey, 120 U.S. 569; Picard v. East Tennessee V. & G.R. Co., 130 U.S. 637. R. Begg, for defendant. The act of May 22, 1857, and its acceptance created an irrepealable contract as to the taxatio......
  • Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Same v. Mayor, Counselor and Aldermen of City of Annapolis
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ...In re Tax Cases, 12 Gill & J. 117; cf. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How.(U.S.) 133, 11 L.Ed. 529; Picard v. East Tennessee, V. & G.R.R. Co., 130 U.S. 637, 641, 9 S.Ct. 640, 32 L.Ed. 1051. It does not even prohibit an exemption in favor of an individual as distinguished from one for the ben......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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