, 1886-11-23
INJUNCTION GRANTED.
Wyoming Central Railway Company
VS.. Isaac Bergman.
Chief Justice Maginnis' Decision in
the Above Case.

In the case OF tne yomlng Nch'ial
Railway company VS.. Isaac Bergman, as
treasurer of Laramie county, in which the
plaintiff sues to recover taxes assessed
against them for the year Of 1886, was de-
cided yesterday by ChiefJ Justice Magin-
mis- in favor of the plaintiff. In giving
the decision, Judge Maginnis said:
This action is brought to restrain the
collection of a tax assessed against certain
property of plaintiff described in the tax
duplicate as thirty miles of railroad
for the reason that at the time when pro-
perry should have been assessed the plain
tiff was not the owner of the property
and for certain Irregularities in the making
of the assessment and also for the reason
that the board making the assessment was
wholly without jurisdiction. There are a
number of questions presented, which
will succinctly state
First. What is the time which the leg
i%slature has fixed for the beginning Of the
fiscal year-the year for which assess
ments for taxation are to be made?
Second, Did the plaintiff at that time
own property subject to taxation within
this territory?
Third. If the plaintiff did own property
subject to taxation, what was the %cllarac-
ter of the property, and whose duty was
it to make the assessment?
Fourth. Did the county board of equal
ization have authority under the statute
to put such property on the assessment
rolls?
Fifth. Is the statute under which said
boards acts constitutional?
Sixth. If the board had the authority
to enter the property ON the assessment
rolls, was the property properly assessed?
Seventh. Is plaintiff entitled to his
injunction?
The first question is, | think, s~atisfac-
torily answered by an examination OF the
various revenue laws and their obvious
intent. Section >, chapter 81. laws of
1856, provides that all land actually ac-
qulred from the United States prior to
April |, of any year shall be subject to be
taxed. Section s, chapter 90, laws of
1854, provides that as between grantee
and grantor OF real estate, if the transfer
was made prior to May |, of any year,
the grantee shall pay the taxes. if after
May /, and before the succeeding Jan.
/, then the grantor shall pay. This sec.
ton is amended, or attempted to be
amended, by section 10, chapter 81, laws
of lsS6, which says that in place OF the
word March in such original section, the
word April shall be read. Some conten-
ton has arisen whether the last named
section has the effect of amending the law
of 1854, but there can be no question that
the legislature intended to make such
amendment, and thereby fix April l as
the line of demarkation. Such being the
manifest intention of the legislature, it
does not devolve upon the court in this
inquiry to pass upon the question as to
whether the legislature has in fact
APPENDED said act. There are some other
provisions of the statute which indicate
the date of April | as that intended by
the legislature for the beginning of the
taxation year-such as the statutes gov
| erning the assessors, the listing of per
sonal property, etc. | do not deem it
necessary to discuss at any length the
almost self apparent necessity of there
being a certain date at which property
shall be assessed for the purposes of taxa
ton. Taxes are a yearly charge upon
land very closely resembling a rent. 1t is
apparent that this being the case, they
must be for a definite time, otherwise
there would be no stability in the valua-
tions and no equality in the taxation. The
law has made a year such period, and
that year mast necessarily have a
fixed and definite beginning and
ending. Taking these statutes together
in the absence of any express provision
governing such period of time, the court
can come to no other conclusion than that
the legislature intended such year to be
gin ON. April l.. All property therefore
in existence, except public lands on April
|, not expressly exempt from taxation,
must be charged with a tax for that year.
Now, what property, ii any, was owned
by plaintiff April /? and incidentally We
may inquire what property is now owned
by such company? from what source did
it come and under what circumstances
1t is admitted by the bill and demurrer
that prior to April l of the present year
plaintiff had acquired a right OF way on
certain lands from the United States.
Such right of way was taxable. There
are tive broad divisions Of property under
the revenue laws; one class is composed Of
personal property, the other of real estate
or land. A right of way is an easement
ON land and an easement is such an inter
est in land as is subject to taxation.
Washburn on easements, &. People vs..
Classify, 4G, 1, 9iG.
After April /, plaintiff acquired two
classes of property, or rather acquired pro
perry from two different sources. 1t obtain