The state chronicle., 1892-12-15

for. as said by the court through Mr.. ustice
Strong, provision was made for the surrender :
Of all the of lis capital stock, and without
stockholders it could not exist. The Central
Companv absorbed the Macon Company, and |
il ceased to be. just as in the case at bar the |
mercer was to result and did result in the de-
termination of the corporate existence OF the
Halifax Company.
In Southwestern Railroad Company V.
Wright, II6 L. S. 23l, the question related
to the liability of the railroad company tor
taxes on different parts of its road The
oricinal charter contained an exemption from
taxation. and as to two of the parts ac-
! nuired or built under subsequent legiSla-
| tion there was a reservation of the right to
| fax. \ third division was constructed under
an ameudatory act giving authority so to do.
..under the rules and restrictions originally
prescribed, but containing nothing about tax
alton. As the original charter was not the
source of power to build the division, Ii was
| decided that the exemption therein con-
tanned did not extend to the latter. Mr.
Chief Justice Waite. delivering the opinion
OF the court, said. In building the exten-
sion or branch the company was placed 'un-
der The rules and restrictions they were sub
iected to in building the original road; but
that did not necessarily imply an exemption
that The old road was exempted. That ex-
emption was only for that road. and as the
amending act does rot in terms or by fair I'M
plication apply the exemption to the addi-
tiona road, which was TO be built under 1t,
we must presume that nothing OF the kind
was intended. and that the State was left
, free 10 tax that road Ike other property.
We concur with the State court in the con-
clusiors reached, as sustained by reason and
authority.
1t appears from the record of the case of
Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company
7 " ohm A. Reid that certain taxes were i'm
: posed in 1860 upon the franchise and rolling
stock of the Wilmington Company and upon
: certain lots of land situated in the county OF
Il. Halifax, forming part of the property of the
/ company and necessary to be used in the
operation of its business; and that the de
: fendant Reid, sheriff Of the county, haC
n seized an engine and tender belonging to tht
, plaintiff in the effort to collect the tax. A de
o mand was made on the county commissioner
E to correct the tax list in the particular of HI
IS levy against the franchise and rolling stock
y and subsequently complaint was filed b.
d the company against the sheriff, the count
Al commissioners not being made parties, settn
Ct up that neither the lots nor the franchise O
n rolling stock were liable to be taxed, becaus
le exempt under section 10 of the company
er charter. The facts being admitted, udg
'e ment was entered sustaining the exemptio
as claimed, and the sheriff was enjomed.
to The case was then taken 10 the Suprem
IL Court OF the State, where it was held tn;
TO the franchise was liable TO taxation, and Ii
TO order of the Superior Court was reversed
fe (64 n. c. 226 To review this Judgment
ey writ of error was sued out from this cour
OF | nd II was thereon decided thu. c+1trta g.
OF enpting all the property of railroad cor
ng pany from taxation exempts not only Il
ar rolling stock and real estate owned by it al
be required by the company for the successf
es. prosecution of its business, but its franchi
cts also and the judgment of the Supren
Court IN turn reversed. Railroad Cor
a. pany V. Reid, IS Wall. 264. These pr
Us ceedings are relied on an estoppel 50
or as the road from Halifax 10 Weldon is co
ear cerned or as controlling authority in /
premises. We think they cannot be so
vas garded. The causes of action are not iden
by cal and the points or questions actually Ii
Ter gated are not the same. The distinction
7ad tween the road from Halifax to Weldon a
act the main read from Wilmington TO HALT
all was not adverted 10, and even if that questi
was might have been raised, this suit being NJ
the a different cause of action, the judgment
80 the former case cannot operate as determ
ing what might have been, but was
om, brought in Issue and passed upon. Cromw
DAD V. County OF Sac, OF L. S. 35I; Nesbir
! or Riverside Improvement District IA U.
law 6Go,
not 1t is quite evident that the former act
the was simply availed of in order to obtain a
y cision as to the power to tax the main Ii
oau and that no other point was controvert
ora Judgment affirmed