State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 784 |
| Citation | 196 Ala. 570,72 So. 99 |
| Parties | STATE v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1916
Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.
Proceeding by the State of Alabama against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for respondent, and the State appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under Act April 18 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 450)§ 6. Affirmed.
The back tax commissioner of Calhoun county sought to assess for the tax year beginning October 1, 1913, as escapes, certain property of the company located at its office in Anniston Calhoun county, consisting of an iron safe, stove, and other office fixtures, in the sum of $500. The company interposed certain pleas, which appear from the opinion.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence H. Brown, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Rushton Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellee.
The question presented for decision is the authority of the state to require the Western Union Telegraph Company to assess in Calhoun county the property in question, consisting of certain office fixtures.
Defendant's pleas aver that the property on which the assessment was made was, on October 1st, and at all times during the tax year, connected with the business of the defendant as a commercial telegraph company operating in the several counties of the state of Alabama, and in the county of Calhoun where the local assessment was sought to be made; that during the tax year for which said assessment was made on said properties, section 2143 of the Code of 1907 required that return by the defendant be made to the state auditor for assessment by the state board of assessment of Alabama, and that return was duly made by defendant as required by this statute; and that the tax commissioner of the county was without jurisdiction to make said assessment. The demurrer raised the question that neither plea presented a valid reason for vacating or annulling the assessment made by the tax assessor or the tax commissioner of Calhoun county.
Section 2144 requires the state auditor to lay before the state board of assessment such returns, or to report to the board the items of property and values of the company, failing to make return, as ascertained by him; and thereupon the state board of assessment must examine such returns and reports, determine the valuation of such property, and assess the same for taxation, as prescribed by statute, and may add to the assessment against any telegraph or long distance telephone company failing to make return within the required time a penalty not exceeding 50 per cent. thereon; and the state auditor must thereupon give to the tax assessors of the several counties in which such property is situated, and to the superintendent or managing agent of such company in this state, the same notification touching such assessment as required by the statutes, and thereupon:
The statute is plain and unambiguous in its enumeration of the properties that must be returned to the state auditor: (1) The number of miles of telegraph or telephone wire in the state belonging to such company; (2) the number of poles; (3) the number of batteries; (4) the number of instruments; and (5) articles of all kinds, in the state, connected with its business of telephone or telegraph, as the case may be.
The state insists that the words, "articles of all kinds in the state, connected with its business," used in section 2143 of the Code, should be construed to refer to and include only such articles as poles, batteries, and instruments under the doctrine of ejusdem generis. This maxim of "ejusdem generis," as that where general words follow the enumeration of a particular class of persons or things the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated, has no application to the statute under construction. For the maxim is only an illustration of the broader maxim "noscitur a sociis," as that general and specific words which are capable of an analogous meaning, being associated together, take color from each other; so that the general words are restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general. Endlich on Interp. Stat. § 400; Broom's Max. 588; 1 Vent. 225. It has never been supposed that, where this rule has application, it is required that the general terms be entirely rejected ; but that every part of a statute should, if possible, be upheld and given appropriate force (Cooley, Const. Lim. [7th Ed.] p. 91; 2 Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const. § 380; State ex rel. v. Lane, 181 Ala. 655, 62 So. 31). So it has been declared that when it can be seen that the particular word by which the general word is followed was inserted, not to give coloring to the general word, but for a distinct object, and when, to carry out the purpose of the statute, the general word ought to govern, it is a mistake to allow the ejusdem generis rule to pervert the construction. State v. Broderick, 7 Mo.App. 19. It is then a rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stovall v. City of Jasper
...bonds," and "other expense necessary for the completion of such improvement," had not the meaning under the ejusdem generis rule, State v. W.U. Tel. Co., supra, and do embrace or authorize a commission on contract price to a city attorney. And the item of attorney's fees on the whole amount......
-
State v. Goldstein
... ... court approved also this passage from the opinion of Bradley, ... J., in Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., ... 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 585; "'The right ... to follow ... 441; ... Ex parte City of Birmingham, 201 Ala. 641, 79 So. 113; ... City of Troy v. Western U. T. Co., 164 Ala. 482, ... 486, 51 So. 523, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 627 ... Statutes ... ...
-
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Capstone Building Corp. (Ex parte Capstone Building Corp.)
...analogous to that of the less general.” Winner v. Marion Cnty. Comm'n, 415 So.2d 1061, 1064 (Ala.1982) (citing State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 196 Ala. 570, 72 So. 99 (1916), and C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.16 (4th ed.1973)). It is true that this Court has stated that ......
-
Magee v. Boyd
...intent in a bill we must look to the entire bill and not to isolated phrases or clauses in the bill. State v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 196 Ala. 570, 72 So. 99 [(1916).]. It will be noted that in the original bill the purpose of the bill as stated in section 4 is to prevent any deficit i......