The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-02-21
.iRAILROAp pTAxATTOy.
Opinson OF the Supreme Court I'm the
Petersburg Case. - IS

2
1.-THE city Of Petersburg u.s. The Petersburg
Railroad Company and others
! This was an important decision, invoiv-
hing the right OF the city OF Petersburg to
tax the property of the Petersburg Railroad
Company within the limits OF the city. The
opinion was delivered by Judge ANT nderson,
OF whichswe give the substance, as follows: !:
by the 17th section OF the act iDcorpora.
ting the Petersburg Railroad Company,
passed February 10, 1880, the property OF
the company was exempted from tax or any
public charge whatsoever. By a subsequert
act, passed April 2, 1863 it would seem
at the instance and by tbe request OF
the two companies, the 1Greenesville
T and Roanoke Railroad Company be-
came merged in the Petersburg Railroad
Company, aud the stockholders OF the
former became stockholders in the latter,
and all the property, real and personal,
owned by the former became the property
of the latter, and the capital stock OF the
latter was increased TO the amount of the
capital stock of both companies and the
charter OF the Petersburg company as
amended became the charter Of the united
companies. And in the latter clause OF the
! Sd section of this act is declared that :. in
no event shall the property Of either Of
/
be exempt from taxation. ;;.
This act was accepted by both companies,
and the presidents OF both, in pursuance
OF the 9TH section, jointly certified to the
Secretary OF State s. that the said compa-
MES had become united in pursuance OF
| the provisions of said act of Assembly.
! Thenceforward they were consolidated into
one company; and its organization and the
| conduct OF its affairs as a consolidated COM
pany were thereafter in accordance with
the provsionsof Of the Petersburg charter as
amended by this act.
It is contended by the appellant that the
said act altered and amended the provision
in the original charter Of the Petersburg
company, which granted it an exemption
from taxation. ii that is so, the two COM
panies, in accepting the amendatory act, ac-
cepted it with that alteration, and are not
entitled to claim an exemption from taxa.
tion under the said 18th section.
But 1t was contended by the learned
counsel for the appellees that the clause re-
lied on by the appellants counsel ls pro
viso restrictive only Of what is enacted in
the Sd section. and does not take away
the right OF exemption from taxation
under the original charter OF the
Petersburg company. That enactment is
as folIows-to wit: THAT on the eXpira-
tion of the charter OF the Petersburg Rail-
. road Company, if the same shall not be re-
newed,' the said companies shall be body
corporate thenceforward, under the charter
of the GreenA6yille Railroad Company, &c. !;
and it is contended that the clause which
denies the right Of exemption from taxation
is a proYiso onlyto said enacting clause, and
takes away the right OF exemption from
taxation only upon the happening OF that
contingency, and at remote period, II 1t
ever happens.
The Court is Of opinion that such is not a
fair construction of the statute. The clause
in question cannot be regarded as proUaSo
at all. There are two provisos which are
restrictive OF the right to re0rganize the
company under the charter Of the Green's
vile and Roanoke Company, upon the con-
tincency mentioned, which may never hap
pen. The first is provided the charter Of
the Petersburg company should not be
abridged or forfeited and the second,
provided the body corporate authorized by
| this section shall be subject to all the rules
and regulations prescribed by the Code for
railroad companies. Both proYisos are
complete in themselves, and are only appli-
cable to this section. Then follows
the declaration which is not restrict
ed to the contingent event, but which
is in these term: 'And in no event shall
the property OF either OF said companies
within this Commonwealth be exempt from
taxation" There was no such exemption
in the charter OF the Greenesvile and Roa-
noke company, and there would have been
no necessity to insert this clause in order to
/ subject the property OF the consolidated
company to taxation but for the said 18th
section in the charter of the Petersburg
/ bo 80 tn foy Is n II
berent and necessary prerogative Of govern
ment, which it may exercise, unless surren-
| dered. The only object and design OF the
Legislature by the declaration in question
was, therefore, to be relieved from the 17th
section Of the Petersburg company's orr
oinal charter, and that was as applicable TO
the 1st and cd as to the Sd section. And it
is inconceivable that the Legislature legis-
lated only with view to avoid its future
operation at a remote period, upon con-
tingency which might never happen, and to
allow it to have present, certain, and con-
tinued operation, and il the contingency
of which the Sd section is predlcated never
happened, perpetual operation, to exempt
the property of these companies from taxa
ton.
The Court is of opinion, therefore, both
upon view Of the grammatical! structure OF
the section and of the purpose and design OF
the Legislature us gathered from the act
itself-in a word, from both the letter ana
spirit OF the act-that the clause in question
is applicable as we'll to the 1st and I'd sec
lions as to the Sd, and that it is not merely
rrouiso restrictive OF the enactment in
the latter section.
IT is virtually repeal Of section II Of
the charter of the Petersburg company, or
if is an express assertion on part OF the
State that said company's property should
not thereafter be exempt from taxation. and
this with the assent and acquiescence OF
thr. company, signihed by the acceptance OF
the act, and reOrganizing and conducting
its operations under it.
Whether the Legislature would have been
! competent. under the reservation OF the
| right to alter, amend, &c, the charter OF
! the Petersburg company. as contained IN
its 32d section, to have en- nero notu made
This alteration, is not u question in this
case, because the act Of April 2, 1858, was
passed at the INSTANCE and request OF said
companies, and was accepted by them.
1 And the Petersburg company, at least,
! took important benefits under 1t; such as
the extension and enlargement Of its char
tered privileges by the right to merge the
Greenesyille and Roanoke company in it
self, and to acquire all its corporate
rights, privileges, franchises, and pro-
perty, and to Increase the amount Of. its own
1 capital stock. 1t appears, also, that the
company afterwards acquiesced in the ex-
ercise OF the taxing prerogatiye claimed by
the city OF Petersburg, and paid the taxes
Ileyied upon it by said city for a series OF
wears, without resistance, until it applied
| Tor and obtained an injunction to the levy