Ryan v. City of Louisville

• Decision Date: 06 May 1909
• Citation: 118 S.W. 992,133 Ky. 714
• Parties: RYAN et al. v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

118 S.W. 992

133 Ky. 714

RYAN et al. v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 6, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the City of Louisville and others against Thomas Ryan and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jos Selligman, Chesley H. Searcy, and Jas. Breathitt, Atty. Gen for appellants.

Carroll & Middleton, for appellees.

SETTLE C.J.

This appeal presents for review a judgment of the Jefferson circuit court, chancery branch, second division, by which the appellant Thomas Ryan, assessor of Jefferson county, was perpetually enjoined from assessing, for state or county taxation for the year 1909, the property of the appellee city of Louisville known as the "Louisville Waterworks" the action for the injunction having been instituted against the assessor by the appellee city of Louisville.

In the case of Bell, Sheriff, v. Louisville Water Company, 106 S.W. 862, this court held that the same property was subject to taxation because the title was at that time vested in a corporation known as the Louisville Water Company, although the whole of the capital stock of that company was owned by the city of Louisville. Immediately following the decision in that case, the water company paid all taxes then due or claimed, together with the interest and penalties resulting from their previous nonpayment. Since that time, however, and prior to September 1, 1908, the entire waterworks plant, its franchise, and effects were transferred and conveyed by the Louisville Water Company to the appellee city of Louisville, and the title thereto, at the time it would have been assessed by appellant but for the injunction preventing its assessment, was vested in the city of Louisville. No doubt can exist as to the validity of this transfer. It was effected in the following manner: The general council of the city, by ordinance duly enacted, directed the commissioners of its sinking fund, custodians of its stock in the Louisville Water Company, to vote the whole of it for the transfer to the municipality of the entire waterworks property, to be, when transferred, under the control of its board of waterworks. The board of sinking fund commissioners, as directed by the ordinance, at a regular meeting voted all the stock of the city in the Louisville Water Company for the purpose indicated. Thereafter the president and secretary of the Louisville Water Company, by resolution of its board of directors, adopted at a regular meeting, executed and delivered a deed conveying the waterworks plant, and property of every kind, of the Louisville Water Company to the city of Louisville, thereby legally consummating the transfer and vesting the title thereto in the municipality.

Conceding the transfer of the property to the city to be valid, does that relieve it from the burden of taxation? The question must be given an affirmative answer, unless this court should conclude to overrule numerous recent cases, in which it was held that such property cannot be taxed, because relieved of that burden by section 170 of the Constitution, which declares: "There shall be exempt from taxation public property used for public purposes." As the city of Louisville is but a political subdivision of the state, and may under its charter own and maintain, for the health safety, and comfort of its inhabitants, the system of waterworks to which it has legally acquired title, such use of the property, being a use for public or governmental purposes exclusively, exempts it from taxation. This conclusion is so well supported by the subjoined list of authorities that further discussion of the matter would be a work of supererogation. ...