State v. Wells Fargo & Co.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1915
• Docket Number: 2119.
• Parties: STATE v. WELLS FARGO & CO.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

150 P. 836

38 Nev. 505

STATE v. WELLS FARGO & CO.

No. 2119.

Supreme Court of Nevada

July 22, 1915

Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; Edward A. Ducker Judge.

Action by the State of Nevada against Wells Fargo & Co. From a judgment for the state and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover taxes assessed against the appellant in the county of Humboldt, amounting to the sum of $694.53 which appellant permitted to go delinquent, together with penalties for nonpayment and costs. From a judgment for the state, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

"That certain property belonging to said Wells Fargo & Company, to wit: The right to carry express and right to transact all other business, then and there, and commonly done and transacted by the said Wells Fargo & Company over the railroad mileage operated by the Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, on that railroad track known as the Central Pacific Railroad passing through said Humboldt County. * * * [Here follows description of line.] The railroad mileage of the said Southern Pacific Company within the said county of Humboldt, on which the said Wells Fargo & Company operates its said express business, is one hundred and forty and fourteen one-hundredths (140.14) miles, at a valuation for the said business of three hundred dollars ($300.00) per mile."The complaint alleged: That for the year 1910, in the county of Humboldt, the assessor of said county did duly assess and put down on an assessment roll all the real and personal property in said county, subject to taxation, which said assessment roll was thereafter submitted to and duly equalized by the board of equalization. That the defendant appellant herein, was then and there the owner of and there was duly assessed to it the following described property:

The answer denied that the property described in the complaint was within the county of Humboldt, or that the same was subject to taxation; that the same was duly or at all assessed to said defendant, or that taxes were duly levied thereon; that the assessment was made by the county assessor of Humboldt county. The answer alleged that there is no law in the state of Nevada authorizing such assessment; that the same is contrary to the Constitution of the United States in that it is an attempt to levy a tax for the right to engage in interstate commerce.

For a further and separate answer and defense to the complaint, defendant alleged: That the county assessor did not make the assessment, but that the same was made by the state board of assessors in January, 1910; that the law under which the said state board of assessors made the assessment is unconstitutional in that it is an attempt to delegate to said board the power and duty of determining or ascertaining what property shall be assessed by it and is an attempted delegation of the taxing power; that the assessment and taxes described in the complaint were made, levied, and imposed upon the right of defendant to conduct and transact its interstate business; that said law, as construed, makes no distinction between intrastate and interstate business and imposes a tax on the right to conduct interstate business; that neither from the law nor the assessment can it be determined what portion of the tax assessed is imposed on the right to transact intrastate business, as distinguished from interstate business; that the tax and assessment were made and levied and were so intended to be made and levied upon the right of defendant to do both intrastate and interstate business; that the law does not provide for any notice to be given to this defendant nor give it any opportunity to appear and be heard at the time of making said assessment, and defendant had no notice of the meeting of the board or of the assessment nor any opportunity to be heard.

For a further answer and defense, defendant alleged:

"That the total property owned by this defendant and situate in the state of Nevada and used by this defendant in the transaction of its business in said state as a going concern, exclusive of real property which is taxed as such, amounts to and is the sum of $11,374.67, and that the total property so owned and used by this defendant and situate in the county of Humboldt amounts to and is the sum of $383.98. That, if the said property so owned and used by this defendant and situate in the county of Humboldt was taxed at the same rate and in the same manner as other property situate in the county of Humboldt and owned by individuals and corporations other than this defendant, the tax so levied and assessed would amount to and be the sum of $6.32. That the total tax assessed against this corporation in the state of Nevada by the state board of assessors in the month of January, 1910, and being the assessment referred to in the answer herein and being the assessment under which the taxes herein sued for were levied, amount to and exceed the sum of $10,000. That at said meeting of the board of assessors said board assessed this defendant and valued the property used by this defendant at the rate or sum of $300 for every mile of railroad over which this defendant transacted business, and apportioned said assessment or tax to the various counties of the state in accordance with the number of miles of such railroads so situated within said county, and that the tax herein sued for was not otherwise levied or assessed. That said system of taxation so attempted to be enforced against this defendant is confiscatory, and the property of this defendant is taken without due process of law in this: That this defendant is assessed for taxes equaling in amount the property owned by it in the state of Nevada, whereas all other property in the state of Nevada is assessed at a much less rate, to wit, at the approximate rate of $2.25 for each $100 of the assessed value of the property so owned by them, and as defendant is informed and believes other property in the state of Nevada is assessed at 60 per cent. of its actual value. That the laws of the state of Nevada under which said taxes are purported to be assessed and levied, and particularly the law referred to in the first, separate, and distinct defense herein, are null and void in that they conflict with and violate the Constitution of the state of Nevada, and particularly section 20 [article 4] thereof, wherein it is provided that the Legislature shall enact no special or local laws for the assessment and collection of taxes for state, county, and township purposes, and that said laws are further null and void in that they conflict with and violate the Constitution of the United States and particularly the fourteenth amendment to said Constitution, wherein it is provided that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Plaintiff, in reply to defendant's answer, denied that the tax or assessment was made by any other person or body than the assessor of Humboldt county, or that the tax or assessment is an attempt to levy a tax upon the right of defendant in engaging in interstate commerce, or is a tax on such commerce, or is a tax other than on the property of the defendant described in the complaint, or that defendant was given no notice or opportunity to be heard at the time of the action of the state board of assessors or of the board of equalization of Humboldt county, or that the total property owned by the defendant within the state of Nevada and used by the defendant in the transaction of its business in said state does not exceed the value of $11,373.67, and alleges the fact to be that the value of the property so owned and used by defendant in Humboldt county is the sum specified in the complaint; denies that the tax sued for was not otherwise levied or assessed than at the meeting of the state board of assessors, and alleges the fact to be that the tax was levied and assessed as set forth in the complaint; denies that the said tax is confiscatory or is assessed for taxes equaling the amount of property owned by it in the state of Nevada, or that the tax so assessed is in any way different or not uniform with the taxes levied and assessed against other property within the state.

At the trial, and prior to taking testimony, the following colloquy occurred between counsel, relative to the pleadings:

"Mr. Callahan: It is not the intention of the plaintiff to deny that the state board of assessors, at their meeting of January, 1910, placed a valuation upon this property of $300 per mile; it is the intention of the plaintiff to admit that fact. And it is the intention of the plaintiff to admit that the assessor of Humboldt county accepted that figure as the value of the property belonging to the defendant company.

Mr. Gibbons: In other words, you confirmed, ratified, and approved the action of the state board of assessors.

Mr. Callahan: No, sir; not exactly that. But that the county assessor then, after that action was taken by the state board of assessors, did every act necessary for him to do in assessing the property. That will be our position. I simply wish to make this comment here upon a portion of this reply, as the reply here seems to deny that any other person

excepting the county assessor made the assessment. We will contend that the county assessor did in fact make the assessment, but we are not going to deny that the state board of assessors that met in January did also place a valuation upon the defendant's property.

Mr Baker: * * * The position that the state takes in this case is that the valuation upon the Wells Fargo property in the...