State v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R. Co.

• Citation: 60 Mo. 143
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 Mo. 143

STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant,

v.THE HANNIBAL & ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court

J. A. Hockaday, Atty. Genl., for Appellant.

I. The provisions of section three of the act of September, 1852, providing for the payment of a tax by the Hannibal & St. Joe. R. R. Company and for the mode of assessment, constituted no such vested right in the company as to preclude the legislature from providing some other mode of assessment.

II. The act of March 10, 1871 (Sess. Acts, 1871, p. 56) providing for assessment and equalization of taxes of all the railroads in the State by a special board, composed of the auditor, treasurer and register of lands, repeals or invalidates that part of the act of Sept. 20th, 1852, which provides for the valuation of the property of respondent, by the president of the Hann. & St. Joe. R. R. Co. (Bailey vs. The Pac. R. R., decided by the U. S. Sup. Ct. in March, 1875, not yet reported.)

James Carr, for Respondent.

I. The original charter of the respondent, by which the stock, and through it the property of respondent, “is exempt from all State and county taxes,” is a contract, valid and binding between the appellant on one side and the respondent on the other. (Binghampton Bridge, 3 Wend., p. 74; Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 519; State Bank of Ohio vs. Knott, 16 How., 369; Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelly, 1 Black, 436.)

There was and is valuable and sufficient consideration for this exemption from all State and county taxes. The respondent's railroad is the pioneer railroad in the State. “This State and the United State shall have the right in time of war to use said road in transportation of troops or munitions of war, in preference to all other persons.” (§ 19, p. 9 of charter.) There was no railroad in this State at the time of granting said exemption. The building of the Hann. & St. Joe. R. R. has added hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxable property of the State, and in this way has more than re-paid the State tenfold for the exemption. (See State Bank of Ohio vs. Knott, 16 How., 369; Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18 Ohio, 331; Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelly, 1 Black, 436.)

If there were any other consideration necessary for this exemption from all State and county taxes, it is contained in the act of congress entitled “an act granting the right of way to the State of Missouri and a portion of the public lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State” approved June 10th, 1852, as follows: “That there be and is hereby granted to the State of Missouri for the purpose of aiding in making the railroads aforesaid, every alternate section of land designated by even numbers for six sections in width on each side of said road. * * * * Provided that the lands hereby granted shall be exclusively applied in the construction of that road for which it was granted and selected, and shall be disposed of only as the work progresses, and the same shall be applied to no other purpose whatsoever.” (§§ 1, 2, p. 14 of charter.) “And the said railroads shall be and remain public highways for the use of the Government of the United States, free from toll or other charge upon the transportation of any property or troops of the United States.” (§ 4, Id.)“That the United States mail shall at all times be transported on said railroads under the direction of the post-office department at such price as congress may by law direct.” (§ 6 Id.; State Bank of Ohio vs. Knott, 16 How., 369; Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18 Ohio, 331; Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelly, 1 Black, 436; Home of the Friendless vs. Rowse, 8 Wal., 430; Washington University vs. Rowse, Id., 439: Wilmington R. R. Co. vs. Reid, 13 Wal., 264; Gordon vs. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How., 133; McGee vs. Mathis, 4 Wal., 142.)

II. Even if there was no contract by virtue of the act of 1852 exempting the respondent from all State and county taxes or modifying the exemptions as herein laid down, still the special act of September 20th, 1852, is not repealed by the act entitled “An act to provide for a uniform system of assessing and collecting taxes on railroads.” Approved March 10th, 1871. A late statute which is general and affirmative does not repeal a former which is particular, unless negative words are used, or unless the two acts are irreconcilably inconsistent. (State ex rel.Vastine vs. Judge of St. Louis Probate Court, 38 Mo., 529, and authorities there cited; N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. vs. Sabine, 26 Pa. St. R., 244; City of St. Louis vs. Alexander, 23 Mo., 483.) There is nothing in the act of March 10, 1871, under which the appellant claims the right to tax the respondent, which repeals the act of September 20th, 1852, either by direct words or even by implication. (Sess. Acts, 1871, p. 56.)

There have been repeated decisions of this court, holding that the respondent is not taxable in any other way, or for any other tax than the one specified in the third section of the act of September 20th, 1852.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering a balance of State taxes assessed for the year 1872, against the defendant.

The defendant appeared and demurred to the petition upon the ground that the company was not liable for the taxes because they had been illegally assessed. This demurrer was sustained by the court and a final judgment was rendered thereon and the plaintiff appealed.

It appears that this controversy grows out of an assessment made for the year 1872 by the special board of equalization on the defendant's road and other property. That board adjusted and equalized defendant's taxable property and placed a valuation on the same of six millions, eight hundred and ten thousand, eight hundred and sixty dollars which was duly certified to the auditor. On this amount the taxes found due were, to the state revenue fund, thirteen thousand, six hundred and twenty-one dollars and seventy-two cents; and to the state indebtedness fund, seventeen thousand and twenty-seven dollars and fourteen cents, making a total of $30,648. 86. Of this sum defendant paid $25,326.27, leaving a balance of $5,322.59 which is the amount sued for.

The ground now taken by the defendant is that the special board of equalization had no authority to make the assessment; that the charter of the company points out the only mode by which taxes could be assessed against it, and that, therefore, the action of the board was void.

The act to provide for a uniform system of assessing and collecting taxes on railroads, approved March 10, 1871 (Sess. Acts 1871, p. 56) enacts that all railroads now constructed, in course of construction, or which shall hereafter be constructed in this State, and all other property, real, personal or mixed, owned by any railroad company or corporation, shall be subject to taxation, etc. The second section declares that on or before the first day of February in each and every year, the president or other chief officer of every railroad company whose road is now or which shall hereafter become so far complete and in operation as to run locomotive engines, with freight or passenger cars thereon, shall furnish to the State auditor a statement duly subscribed and sworn to by said president or other chief officer, before some officer authorized to administer oaths, setting out in detail all the property of said company, including the road-bed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars, lands, workshops, depots, and all other property of whatsoever kind, with the location thereof and the actual value thereof in each county in cash. The 5th section constitutes the State Auditor, State Treasurer and the Register of Lands a special board of equalization of railroad property, and gives them the same powers and authorizes them to discharge the same duties with reference to railroad property as the State Board of equalization with reference to all other property. Section six provides that the board shall meet at the office of the State Auditor on the first Monday in May in each and every year, and requires the auditor to lay before the board all returns which shall have been made in accordance with the provisions of the law. The seventh section regulates the manner of proceeding in the valuation, adjustment and equalization of the property. This was the law under which the board acted in making the assessment.

On September 20th, 1852, an act was passed to give the defendant the benefit of the donation of lands made by congress in the same year. This act was accepted by the defendant and in the third section is the following: “In consideration of the grants and privileges herein conferred upon said company, the said company shall, on the first Monday in December in each year after said road is completed, opened and in operation, and declares a dividend, pay into the treasury of the...