Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-02-15
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
AND TIE RAILROAD TAX CASES.

Following is the text of the opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United States,
in the case of Coils P. Huntington, appel
liant, VS.. Charles E. Palmer, Tax Collector
Of the County of Alameda, and the Cen.
trail Pacific Railroad Company, which was
appealed from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of Cali
fornia:
This is an spp Il from decree of the
Circuit Courl III the District of California,
dismissiDg on demurrer the appellants bill
in equity.
The bill sets out that the Railroad Com
pany is unjustly and illegally 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 asserted to be in
conflict with the Constitution of the United
States.
1t is unnecessary to examine into the
sufficiency of the allegations of the bill on
these points, because we think it comes
clearly within the principle just announced
in the case of Hawes vs. The Contra Costa
Water Company and others.
Although the Central Pacific Railroad
Company is the party injured by the taxa
tion complained of, which must be paid out
of its treasury, if paid at all, the suit is
not brought in its name, but in the name
of one OF its stockholders. o. 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 December, 1880, did inform
and cause to be informed the Board of Di.
rectors of the railroad company of the in
validity of the pretended assessment and
the tax founded thereon, and did, then
and there, request said Board to take such
action or legal proceedings as might be
proper in the premises to test and deter.
mine their validity, which they then and
there absolutely and willtully refused 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 is not, as in the case of Dodge vs.
Woolsey, any averment that this tax is
80 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 re.
sist the tax is unwise, or opposed to the
best Judgment they could exercise in the
matter.
There is no averment of any effort to in
woke the control of the body of the stock.
holders, or any reason why it was not
done. Nor is it made to appear that a
single other stockholder, besides the plaint-
iff, was consulted by him, or has any wish
to contest the payment of these taxes with
the State authorities.
1t is the bald claim of one stockholder,
owning 500 600 of the stock out of sl0,-
600. 600 OF thereabouts, without any serious
effort to bring the others to his views, or
even the Board of Directors, to assert a
right of action for the whole body in the
very common matter OF paying more taxes
than he thinks is just.
There is here no formal written appeal
to the Board, nor any formal resolution of
that body, as in the case of Dodge vs.
Woolsey, and there is nothing to repel the
reasonable presumption OF parties improp.
erly and collusively made in order to in.
woke the jurisdiction OF the Federal Court.
We are Of opinion, therefore, that the
demurrer was properly sustained. and the
decree dismissing the bill is affirmed.