The Atlanta St. R.R. Co. v. The City Of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 30 September 1880
• Parties: The Atlanta Street Railroad Company. vs. The City of Atlanta et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

66 Ga. 104

The Atlanta Street Railroad Company. vs. The City of Atlanta et al.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1880.

Municipal corporations. Tax. Railroads. Contracts. Verdict. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Buchanan. Fulton Superior Court. March Term, 1880.

Reported in the decision.

Candler & Thompson; B. H. Hill & Son, for plaintiff in error, cited 6 Watts & S., 378; 8 Ib., 334; 3 Zabriskie, 510; 5 Barr., 70; 4 Mete, 564; 37 Ga., 644; 44 Ib., 624, 646; Code, §2754; Cooley on Taxation, 15 1; 6 Penn. St., 70; 11 Ib., 202; 15 Ib., 351; Pierce on Am. Rwy. Law, 50; 21 Grat., 604. On the verdict, Code, §§3559. 2755-2757.

W. T. Newman, for defendants, cited, acts 1865-6, p. 201; City Code of 1879, §563 5 Cooley on Taxation, 146, 149, 152 and notes; Dillon on Mun. Corps., 616; 22 Penn. St., 499; 50 Ga., 620; 9 Otto, 348; Code, §4.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

This bill was filed in 1874, to enjoin the city of Atlanta from collecting taxes levied on a lot and stables where the mules and horses of the Atlanta Street Railroad Company are housed, and on a lot on which buildings for sheltering the cars of the company are erected. An injunction until the hearing was then granted, and the hearing had in 1880, when a verdict and decree were rendered to the effect that the property was subject to taxation. A motion was made to set aside the verdict and award a new trial, on the grounds therein set out, which was overruled, and the street railroad company excepted.

The exemption from taxation was claimed under the following contract: "The road, rolling and live stock of said company are hereby exempted from taxation for theterm of fifty years, " and the controlling question is, do these words cover t e two lots and tenements thereon, as part and parcel of the road?

1, The court submitted that question on the paper itself, and parol evidence in relation to what the term "road" embraced, to the jury; and one ground of the motion is, that the court erred therein. The writing not being left to stand for construction by itself, we see no error in leaving it with the other testimony thereon for the jury. It did not hurt, however, even if error, in the view we take of the case.

2. It is also said that the verdict is void for uncertainty. It is as follows: " We, the jury, find and decree as follows: That the land immediately occupied by the track of said street railroad company is not subject to taxation by defendants, and we further decree that the balance of the property upon which said fi. fa. is levied is subject to taxation by defendants, and that the injunction be dissolved and the fi. fa. be allowed to proceed against the balance of the property."

Whilst this verdict might have been clearer, we do not think it so uncertain as to be void. It means that the property of this company which is invested in its roadbed, whereon its cars run for the convenience of the pub-public, through the streets of the city, is not subject to be taxed by the city, but that these improvements which are erected for stables and shelter, are so liable. In other words, that the great investment which has been made by the company, and the value of it, shall not be taxed, as the property of other persons is taxed, according to valuation thereof, but that these two items of property—these two lots with all the improvements thereon, except the mere road-bed under one of them, are liable to be taxed like all other city property, according to its value. When we consider what is levied on, the verdict is entirely clear, These two lots are levied on, and the verdict exempts the tracks which take the cars in and out, and on which theystand at night, and subjects the rest of the lots. And the decree of the chancellor follows this verdict, so understood and interpreted.

3. The other grounds, when analyzed, present but the one controlling question first propounded, and that is, are these two lots exempt from taxation under a proper legal construction of the city's contract with this company, in the light of the oral testimony bearing upon it?

The record shows that there is a blacksmith shop to shoe the mules and for other kindred purposes, and tenements for some of the hands employed by the company, and places for the storage of ties or stringers to repair the line of road from time to time, and hospital for sick mules and other like conveniences for the company on these two lots. It is also in evidence that for some time the cars remained standing, when not in use, on the tracks whereon they ran for public convenience, and that the city notified the company that they must not so remain, and thus constrained them to purchase and build or rent places off the streets, and sold the company one of the lots. It is also proven by the president of the road and another witness largely interested therein when the enterprise was commenced, that they understood the term " road" to embrace these or such places as these, and that they considered themselves experts, and such places should be embraced in the technical meaning of " road " as applied to street railroad companies.

These are substantially the facts which the court and jury had before them on the trial of this important case. Let us first assume that the plaintiff in error is...