Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1882-02-17
Eos Aueeles Aerala.
RAILROAD TAXES.
Text Of the Recent Decision Of the Supreme
Court Ct the United States Affecting their
Collection In Alameda Comfy.

Following is the text of the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, delivered by Mr..
Justice Miller, in the case of Coils
p. Huntington, appellant, vs..
Charles Z. Palmer, Tax-Cellector
Of the county Of Alameda, and the
Central Pacific Railroad Company,
which was appealed from the Cir
cult Court of the United States for
the District of CALIFORNIA;:
This is an appeal from q decree
Of the Circuit Court for the Dis
trict of California, dlsmissiDg on
demurrer the appellants bill in
equity.
The bill sets out that the Rail-
road Company is unjustly and ille-
gally taxed in many particulars,
the laws under which the tax is
levied being void for conflict with
the Constitution of the State, and
In an amended bill they were as
serted to be in conflict with the
Constitution of the United States.
tits unnecessary to examine into
the sufllciency of the allegations of
the bill on these points, because We
think it comes clearly within the
principles Just announced in the
case OF Halves vs.. The Contra costa
Water Works and others.
Although the Central Pacific
Railroad Company Is the party in
jured by the taxation complained
Of, which must be paid out OF its
treasury, II paid at all, the suit is
not brought in its name, but in
the name of one of its stockholders.
OF course, as we have attempted to
show in the case just mentioned,
this cannot be done without there
has been an honest and earnest
effort by the plaintiff to induce the
corporation to take the necessary
steps to obtain relief.
The allegation on this subject
found in the bill Is that plaintiff,
on or about the 18th day of Decem.
Der. 1880. did inform and cause to
be informed the Board of Directors
of the Railroad Company Of the in.
validity of the pretended ASSESS
ment and the tax founded thereon,
and did then and there request said
Board to take such action or legal
proceedings IS might be proper in
the premises to test and determine
their validity, which they then and
there absolutely and wilfully re-
fused to do. He then alleges that
said Board will pay these illegal
taxes out of funds of the Company,
to the detriment of himself and
other stockholders.
There 10 not, as in the case of
Dodge VS.. Woolsey, any averment
that this tax is go burdensome as
to be destructive Of the corporation
itself; nor Of any fraud on the part
OF the Board of Directors, nor any.
thing to show that their decision
not to resist the tax is unwise, or
opposed to the best judgment they
could exercise in the matter.
There is no averment of any eff
fort to invoke the control of the
body of the stockholders, or any
reason why it was not done. Nor
Is 1t made to appear that u single
other stakeholder, besides the
plaintiff, was consulted by him, or
has any wish to contest the pay
ment of these taxes with the State
authorities.
It is the bald claim of one stock.
holder, owning 100000 of the
stock out of ten millions, or there
abouts. without any serious effort
to bring the others to his views, or
even the Board of Directors, to as.
seft right Of action for the whole
body In the very common. matter
OF paying more taxes than be
thinks is just.
There ID here no formal written
appeal to the Board, nor any form
81 resolution of that body, as in the
case of Dodge VS.. Woolsey, and
there is nothing to repel the reas-
enable presumtiOn Of parties i'm.
properly and collusively made in
order to invoke the Jurisdiction of
the Federal Court.
We are OF opinion, therefore,
that the demurrer was properly
sustained, and the decree dismiss
Ing the bill is affirmed.