State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

Decision Date19 March 1883
Citation30 Minn. 311,15 N.W. 307
PartiesSTATE OF MINNESOTA v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from judgment of district court, county of Ramsey.

W. J. Hahn, for appellant.

R. B. Galusha and H. R. Bigelow, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The only question in this case is, does the $40,000 per annum which the Northern Pacific Railroad Company pays to defendant for the right to run its trains over defendant's lines from Sauk Rapids to St. Paul, from St. Cloud to East St. Cloud, and from Minneapolis (west) to East Minneapolis, come within the term of “gross earnings,” upon which, according to the act from which the defendant derives its existence, 3 per centum is to be paid in lieu of taxes?

The part of the act (section 18, subc. 1, c. 1, Laws 1857, Ex. Sess.) which provides for the payment of such per centum, reads: “In consideration of the grants, privileges, and franchises herein conferred on said Minnesota & Pacific Railway Company, the said company shall and will, on or before the first day of March in each year, pay into the treasury of the territory or future state 3 per centum of the gross earnings of said railroad for the year ending on the last day of the preceding December, in lieu of all taxes and assessments whatever.” Further on the section provides: “For the purpose of ascertaining the said earnings an accurate account shall be kept by said company of all receipts and expenditures on account of the operation of said railroads, and abstracts therefrom shall be furnished by said company to the treasurer of the territory or state.” No provision is made for ascertaining or certifying to the treasurer any receipts other than those mentioned in this clause, to-wit, those “on account of the operation of said railroads.” It is clear that those are the only receipts of which any account is to be taken between the company and the state; and, as that account is to be kept and an abstract thereof furnished to the treasurer for the purpose of ascertaining the earnings on which the 3 per centum is to be paid, it is equally clear that no other receipts were intended to enter into the compensation, or make any part of such earnings. Rent or compensation paid to the company for the right to operate the railroad cannot be called receipts on account of the application of it. The company might not operate its railroad at all, but lease it for a gross sum, in which case all the receipts on account of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • State v. Great N. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 24, 1908
    ... ... Paul and St. Anthony before January 1, 1862, all rights under the act should be forfeited to the state without any further act or ceremony on its part. The company failed to comply with the conditions, and in consequence the land grant and all property, rights, privileges, and immunities of the company ... ...
  • County of Traverse v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 22, 1898
    ... ... Appurtenant to Road and Transferable ...          The ... exemption of the road and land grant of the First Division of ... the St. Paul & Pacific Railway Company from ordinary ... taxation, in consideration of the payment to the state of a ... percentage of the gross earnings of its road (see First ... Division v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 224 [297]), was not a mere ... personal privilege to that company, but was appurtenant to ... the line of road and the lands, and transferable to any other ... company which might acquire the ... ...
  • State v. Great Northern Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 24, 1908
    ...supra; City of St. Paul v. St. Paul & S.C.R. Co., supra; County of Nobles v. Sioux City & St. P.R. Co., 26 Minn. 294; State v. St. Paul, M. & M.R. Co., 30 Minn. 311; State v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 32 Minn. County of Hennepin v. St. Paul, M. & M.R. Co., 33 Minn. 534; County of Ramsey v. C......
  • State v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 24, 1908
    ...N. W. 217; State v. Luther, 56 Minn. 156, 57 N. W. 464; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Pfaender, 23 Minn. 217; State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 311, 15 N. W. 307; County of Todd v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 163, 36 N. W. 109; and other similar cases. But an examinatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT