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

• Decision Date: 28 February 1866
• Citation: 37 Mo. 265
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 Mo. 265

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

v.THE HANNIBAL AND ST. JOSEPH RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Febuary Term, 1866.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court.

Carr, for appellant.

Dixon & Vories, for respondent.

HOLMES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented in this case is, whether certain lands which were granted by the State to the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, by the act of the General Assembly of September 20, 1852, (R. R. Laws, 115.) were taxable in the county of Livingston for the year 1864, for State and county purposes, under the general revenue law, (Laws of 1863-4, p. 65,) which enumerates as objects of taxation all “shares of stock in banks and other incorporated companies, the property of which alone shall be taxed,” and “all property owned by incorporated compapanies, over and above their capital stock.”

By the third section of the act making the grant of these lands (R. R. Laws, 116), it was provided as follows: § 3. In consideration of the grants and privileges herein conferred upon said company, the said company shall, on the first day of December of each year, after said road is completed, opened, and in operation, and declares a dividend, pay into the treasury of the State a sum of money equal to the amount of State tax on other real and personal property of like value, for that year, upon the actual value of the road-bed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars, and other property of said company, which shall be as a consideration to the State for the execution of the trust reposed in the State by the act of Congress of the United States, approved June 10th, 1852, 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”; and for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the same, the president of the company was to furnish to the Auditor of the State each year, a statement of the valuation, under oath, giving “the actual, value of the road bed, machinery, buildings, engines, cars, and other property of said company, from which statement the Auditor was to charge the amount of the tax appearing to be due the State, and the same was to be paid by the company, under certain penalties; and after two years the tax was to be paid without regard to a dividend being declared or not. It was further provided that if the land remained unsold for ten years after the completion of the road the same should then be disposed of at public auction. (§ 6.)

In the case of the Hann. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Shacklett, (30 Mo. 550) it was decided under the same laws, that the property of this company, “consisting of the road bed, depot, cars, locomotives, and all the real and personal property necessary for the operation of the road,” was not liable to taxation, under the general revenue law, for State and county purposes, in any county; that the company was exempted by its charter from such taxation, under the clause which declared that every person who shall cease to be a stockholder, shall also cease to be a member of said company; and that the stock of said company shall be exempt from all State and county taxes; and that the property above mentioned was to be considered as being represented by the stock. It was also held that the third section of the act aforesaid imposed a tax on the company in respect of the property therein mentioned, namely, “the road bed, buildings, machinery, engines, cars and other property of said company,” which was to be assessed and collected in the mode specifically pointed out in the act, and that a double taxation could not have been intended by the Legislature “A double taxation,” says Napton, J., “on the same property is manifestly not intended, either by this enactment or by the provisions of the general revenue law.” Now, the only other property of the company, besides that of the same description, which was the...