State ex rel. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co. v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 20 June 1895 |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 746,90 Wis. 550 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. MILWAUKEE ST. RY. CO. v. ANDERSON, CITY CLERK, ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Dodge county; A. Scott Sloan, Judge.
Certiorari by the state, on the relation of Milwaukee Street-Railway Company, to review the proceedings of William Anderson, city clerk, and others, comprising the board of review of the city of Milwaukee, on the assessment of relator's property for the purposes of taxation. The circuit court reversed the action of the board, and they appeal. Affirmed.
A common-law writ of certiorari was issued out of the circuit court to the appellant, as city clerk of Milwaukee, and ex officio clerk of the board of review of that city, to bring before the court an assessment of the relator's property for 1894, in order that it might be corrected, or reversed and set aside. It appeared from the petition that the relator had its principal office in the Third ward of Milwaukee, and had in operation in the city about 120 miles of street railway, operated over the whole extent of the city, with the exception of a mile or two, by electricity generated by machinery situated upon real estate owned by it, and extending into every ward and assessment district of the city; that it was also engaged in supplying electric lights to the city and its citizens, and owned said street railway and electric light business under a number of franchises and contracts granted by the common council by various ordinances, and it claimed also to own the franchises and property of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company and of the Badger Illuminating Company, corporations existing under the laws of the state, and that it was operating under their franchises; that an assessment had been made against it by the assessors of the city of Milwaukee for the year 1894, as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Real estate assessed in the various wards where same is ¦$ 553,790 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Personal property, consisting of horses, cars, motors, furniture, ¦ ¦
¦snowplows, sweepers, and other vehicles, assessed in the Third ¦200,000 ¦
¦ward at ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦The franchises, together with all tracks, ties, stringers, feed ¦ ¦
¦wires, poles, trolley wires, cables, and switches, owned by it in ¦ ¦
¦the city of Milwaukee, together with poles, wires, meters, ¦2,063,000 ¦
¦insulators, light conductors, and cables of the properties known ¦ ¦
¦as the Badger Illuminating Company, owned by the Milwaukee Street ¦ ¦
¦Railway Company, assessed in the Third ward at ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Merchants' stock assessed in the Twelfth ward at ¦5,000 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Personal property assessed in the Second ward at ¦2,000 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Total ¦$2,823,790¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦The franchises of the Badger Illuminating Company ¦25,000 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦The franchises of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company ¦12,000 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Grand Total ¦$2,860,790¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
It was alleged that said assessment was an increase over the year 1893 of $1,714,050, caused “by assessing the so-called franchises of the petitioner at a high, exorbitant, and unreasonable value, arbitrarily, and upon no basis other than the mere guess of the assessors”; that in spite of evidence offered by it before the board of review, and its objections, the board refused to change said assessment. It was charged that the franchises of the petitioner were not taxable by the city of Milwaukee, or that, if taxable, no statute had been passed regulating the valuation of the same, and that there was no method of determining the value of such franchises; that under existing conditions they were of little value; and that the said assessment was illegal and unjust. The writ commanded the return of the proceedings of the board of review, by which it “refused to alter or change the assessments made against the franchises and property of the Milwaukee Street-Railway Company, as follows: $2,063,000, $25,000, and $12,000.” The proceedings of the board of review, by which the assessments named in the writ were confirmed, were returned with the testimony taken, and statements of counsel and officers of the corporation. It appeared from the testimony that the company had 119 miles of single track within the city limits, extending into every assessment district of the city,--21 in number; that there were upon certain of its real estate (a list of which was exhibited, but not embraced in the return) power houses used in running its railway, and that all its lines, substantially, were run by electricity, and that it had 10 miles of street railway beyond the city limits; that the power for traction was derived from the power house in the Seventh ward, but it had a power house in the Sixth ward, formerly used for such purposes, and one in the Fourth ward, which had been used until recently. The circuit court for Dodge county, where the case was heard, gave judgment reversing and setting aside the assessment of $2,063,000 “for franchises, together with tracks, ties, stringers, feed wires, poles, trolley wires, cables, and switches owned by it, together with the poles, wires, meters, insulators, light conductors, and cables of the properties known as the Edison Company and Badger Company, owned by the relator,” and also reversing and setting aside the assessment of $12,000 and $25,000 for the franchises of the two last named companies, respectively. An appeal was taken from this judgment.C. H. Hamilton, for appellant.
Miller, Noyes & Miller and Spooner, Sanborn & Kerr, for respondent.
PINNEY, J. (after stating the facts).
The assessments against the Milwaukee Street-Railway Company for the franchises of the Badger Iluminating Company and for the franchises of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company cannot be sustained; and so, too, as to any property belonging to either of those companies. The franchises of the two last-named companies, and any property they may own, belong in law to them, respectively, and are proper matter of assessment against such companies only. Their franchises of existence are inalienable, and their other franchises and property they had no power to make over, by deed or transfer, to the street-railway company, so as to disable them from performing the duties they owe, respectively, to the public as a consideration for the franchises granted to them. It is contended on behalf of the railway company that its franchises are not liable to assessment and taxation, for the reason that no provision or rule has been enacted for their valuation; that its franchises and tracks, ties, stringers, poles, wires, etc., are real estate, and, as such, liable to assessment only in the ward or assessment district where situated; that it is not competent, in the present condition of the statutes, and the city charter of Milwaukee, to assess the real estate on which its power houses are situated in the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh wards or assessment districts, in the Third ward or district where the company has its principal office, and into and through which its road in part extends, with its franchises, tracks, etc., as an entirety; and that, if competent to assess its franchises, and all property necessary to the operation of its road as an entirety, the assessment in question is void for the reason that such property has not been assessed as an entirety, the power houses and premises on which they are situated having been assessed separately from the franchises and other property in the wards or districts where situated. The questions involved are important, in view of the great and constantly increasing amount of capital invested and used in connection with such franchises by water, light, and street-railway companies,--corporations of a quasi public character,--the franchises and property of which are charged, by reason of their legal connection, with important uses in favor of the public. It was not denied--indeed, it was rightly conceded--that the franchises of the street-railway company are property. It is believed that there is no authority to the contrary, nor is it seriously questioned but that the franchises of the company, and its property, of whatever kind, necessary or essential to their exercise and use to carry out the purposes for which it was created, are in law an entirety, and indivisible, and not subject to severance by sale for taxes under the general operation of the tax laws, or other legal process.
1. It is declared by statutes in force ever since the state was organized that “taxes shall be levied upon all property in this state, except such as is exempted therefrom.” Rev. St. 1878, § 1034; Rev. St. 1858, c. 18, § 1; Rev. St. 1849, c. 15, § 1. And in each of these revisions there is found a section with several subdivisions exempting several kinds of property from taxation; but there never has been any statute in force exempting franchises of any quasi public corporation from taxation, except in the single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teche Lines, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of forrest County
... ... granted to nonresident corporation to operate bus in state ... held not exempt from taxation (Code 1930, sections 3136, ... the Legislature to impose double taxes ... State ... ex rel. Knox v. Union Tank Car Company, 151 Miss ... 797, 119 So. 310; ... State ... ex rel. Milwaukee, St. R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 ... Wis. 550; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v ... ...
-
Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. State
... ... Milwaukee & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Board of Supervisors of County of Waukesha, 9 Wis. 431, note; ... There is nothing in State ex rel. Baraboo v. Sauk County, 70 Wis. 487, 36 N. W. 396, or Battles v. Doll, 113 Wis. 357, 89 N. W. 187, ... State v. Bellew, 86 Wis. 189, 196, 56 N. W. 782;State v. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 568, 63 N. W. 746;Wisconsin Central Railway Co. v. Lincoln County, 57 Wis. 137, 15 N ... ...
-
Adams Outdoor v. City of Madison
... ... W.2d 695 (1994); Bischoff, 81 Wis.2d at 619, 260 N.W.2d 773; and State ex rel. I.B.M. Corp. v. Board of Review, 231 Wis. 303, 311-12, 285 N.W ... Geipel v. City of Milwaukee, 68 Wis.2d 726, 733-34, 229 N.W.2d 585 (1975)). If there has been no ... In State ex rel. Milwaukee Street Railway Co. v. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 63 N.W. 746 (1895), the court approved the assessment of a ... ...
-
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. City of Madison, 2006 WI 104 (Wis. 7/13/2006)
... ... 2d at 619; and State ex rel. I.B.M. Corp. v. Board of Review , 231 Wis. 303, 311-12, 285 N.W ... App. 1980) (citing State ex rel. Geipel v. City of Milwaukee , 68 Wis. 2d 726, 733-34, 229 N.W.2d 585 (1975)). If there has been no ... In State ex rel. Milwaukee Street Railway Co. v. Anderson , 90 Wis. 550, 63 N.W. 746 (1895), the court approved the assessment of a ... ...