St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Miller County

• Decision Date: 24 February 1900
• Citation: 55 S.W. 926
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. MILLER COUNTY.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 926

55 S.W. 926

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. MILLER COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 24, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Miller county; Joel D. Conway, Judge.

Proceeding by the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company against Miller county to set aside an assessment for taxation. From a judgment in part for plaintiff and in part for defendant, both parties appeal. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

This action was commenced by a petition of the railway company, filed in the county court of Miller county, asking that court to set aside and declare void an assessment of certain land owned by the company in the city of Texarkana. The different lots of land assessed, with the exception of that portion used by the company for stock yards, he on each side of the railway tracks of the company, no portion thereof being within 50 feet of any such track. With the exception of the stock yards, no building or structure used in the operation of the railroad is located on the land, nor is any portion of it used as approaches or grounds for any such building. The assessment in question was made in 1897 by the tax assessor of Miller county, and the petition alleged that it was illegal and void for the following reasons: (1) Because said land is a part of the railroad right of way, and necessary for the use and operation of the railway, and is not subject to assessment by the county assessor. (2) That the assessor had no authority to assess lands for back or overdue taxes, but undertook to assess the land for the years 1893 to 1897, inclusive, and that for this reason alone the assessment was void, except for the current year, 1897. The county appeared by its attorneys, and filed a response to the petition, denying that the land in question was a part of the right of way, or necessary for the use and operation of the railway, and denying that the assessment was in any respect illegal. The circuit court, to which the case was carried by appeal, held that so much of the land assessed as was used by the company for stock yards was not subject to local assessment, and ordered such assessment to be set aside, canceled, and held for naught. As to the remainder it declared that the assessment was valid, and overruled the petition as to the same. Both parties appealed.

Dodge & Johnson, for plaintiff. E. B. Kinsworthy, Atty. Gen., and Scott & Jones, for defendant.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

The first question in this case is whether the land of the appellant railway company, which it alleges has been unlawfully assessed, was subject to be assessed by the local assessor, or whether it is property which the statute requires the board of railroad commissioners to value and assess for taxation. The method of taxing property of railway companies imposed by our statute is to treat all of such property forming a part of the railway line, and used in the operation of the railway, as an entirety. It requires that such property shall be assessed by the board of railroad commissioners, and taxed as a whole. This is the best method of taxing railroads, since any other "would dissect the property into fragmentary parts, and lead to confusion and injustice." 2 Elliott, R. R. § 737. But our statute does not authorize the board of railroad commissioners to assess all real estate which may be owned by railroad companies. The authority of such board to assess land is limited to the railway line and its right of way, with the improvements thereon, which add to its value as a railroad. All other real estate must be assessed by the local assessor. The statute requires the railroad company to "make out and file with the secretary of state a statement or schedule showing the length of the main track and all side tracks, switches, and turnouts in each county in which the railroad may be located, and in each city and town in said county through or into which the railroad may run." It provides that the company shall state the value of the whole railroad, "taking into consideration in estimating and fixing such value the entire right of way, * * * and everything upon such right of way and appurtenant to such railroad which adds to the value thereof as an entire thing." Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 6467, 6468. It will be noticed that the statute expressly requires that the entire right of way shall be considered in estimating the value of the road. This, in effect, covers about all the land actually used in the operation of the railroad, for under our statute the words "right of way," as applied to railroads, "include all grounds necessary for side tracks, turnouts, depots, shops, water stations, and other necessary buildings." Id. § 2781. It is clear then that, if the land assessed includes any portion of the right of way of the company as defined by the statute, the assessment was illegal and void, for the assessor has no authority to assess the right of way of a railway company; that power being vested only in the board of railroad commissioners. On the other hand, if it is not a part of the right of way, it is subject to local assessment. After considering the evidence, we are of the opinion that the finding of the circuit judge on this question was correct. That portion of the land in respect to which he held the assessment invalid had upon it the stock yards of the company. These yards were used in the operation of the railroad, and were necessary to the proper shipment and handling of live stock. A stock yard is in fact a depot for the reception of a peculiar class of freight, and is a part of the right of way under the statute above quoted, which provides that the words "right of way" shall include all grounds necessary for depots and other necessary buildings. In a country where cattle and other live stock are shipped to and from nearly every station a stock yard or pen for live stock is almost as necessary to a railway company as a depot for other freight. Speaking of this question, the supreme court of New York said: "It hardly needs an argument to establish that in the city of New York depots for freight and the vast...