The state chronicle., 1892-12-15

Supreme Court, which held that the Supe-
rior Court had decided correctly as to the
branch line, but should have also decided the
road-bed and rolling stock between Hallfax
and Weldon to be taxable; and. therefore,
in that respect reversed the judgment of that
court Final judgment having been alter
ward entered in the Superior Court in accor-
dance with the opinion and judgment of the
Supreme Court the case was again taken by |
plaintiff to the Supreme Court and the Judg- |
ment affirmed, whereupon this writ OF error
was sued out. The opinions of the Supreme |
Court, by Clark, Jr., which discuss the ques-
tions involved in all their aspects, will be
found reported in 10 n. {. 1877.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opin-
ion of the court:
The jurisdiction of this court is questioned
upon the ground that the decision OF the
Supreme Court of North Carolina conceded
the validity of the contract of exemption
contained in the act of 1884 but denied that
particular property was embraced by It's
terms; and that, therefore, such decision did
not involve Federal question.
In arriving at its conclusions, however, the
State court gave effect to the revenue law of
1901, and held that the contract did not con-
fer the right of exemption from It's operation.
| If it did, its obligation was impaired by the
subsequent law, and as the inquiry whether
| ii did or not was necessarily directly passed
| upon, we are of opinion that the writ Of error
was properly allowed. New Orleans Water
Works V. Louisiana Sugar Company, I25
U. S. IS, 38.
We do not regard Henderson Bridge Com
pany v Henderson City, I4I U. s. $40, and
Railway Company v. Todd County, 142 U,
S. 2S2, cited by defendant in error, as quail
flying the rule upon this subject.
In Henderson Bridge Company V. Hen
derson City, it was held by the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky that the city of Hen
derson under certain city ordinance accept
ed by the Bridge Company had acquired a
contract right to tax that part of the bridge
within the city limits in consideration of
rights and privileges granted the company by
the ordinance, and as this Interpretation JUS
tihed the municipal taxation in question, and
5 could not be reviewed by US, we declined tc
maintain jurisdiction.
In Railway Company V. Tood County
: certain lands were considered by the State
: court as not within the exemption claimed
: under the revenue law existing at its date.
t But in the case in hand the court passe'
: upon the action of the authorities in virtu
e of legislative act approved more than fft
; years after the making of the supposed con
d tract, and explicitly upheld the law.
We are obliged, then, to consider tn
e legality Of this taxation in respect of tn
N branch road proper and Of the road fror
le Halifax to Weldon.
le The inquiry is limited to taxation on co
ID porate property only, though the original e,
Of emption also covered the shares of the cap
y. tai stock in the hands of its shareholder
ar The legislature recognized the distinction b
IN tween the one class and the other; and if
G. were conceded that all the shares shou
IN be treated sas exempt, as contended, in r
id spect of which we are called upon to EXPIRE
ne no opinion yet the entire property Of t
ad company might might not be exempt
On the light of all the provisions of the chart
r. with its amendments, and the terms of t
he authority under which it may have been q
lit quired.
er The applicable rule is too well settled
II require exposition or the citation of authori
in The taxing power is essential to the existen
lly of government, and cannot be held to ha
ak been relinquished in any instance unless t
Ter deliberate purpose of the State to that eff
i'd clearly appears. The surrender of pow
he so vital cannot be left to inference or CO
so, ceded in the presence of doubt and wh
nd the language used admits of reasonable G.
in tention, the conclusion is inevitable in fa'
fax of the reservation of the power.
to By its charter the Wilmington and Rale
tly Railroad Company, with capital stock
the eight hundred thousand dollars, was empc
the cred to construct, repair and maintain r
as road from Wilmington 10 Raleigh, and by
ent nineteenth section it was provided (the pur
to uaton being corrected) that the property
of said company and the shares therein shall
one exempt from any public charge or tex WI
1t ever"
l of By section 2 branch roads were authoriz
the the whole capital of subscribed stock no
cor exceed one million of dollars, and by sect
xis- 22 it was provided that all the pow
ack rights and privileges conferred by the
the ceding sections upon the said company,
my, respect to the main road, and the la
i as through which it may pass, are hereby
act clared to extend in every respect TO the
lary company, and the president and direc
took thereof, in the laying out, in the const
ssue ton, and in the use and preservation of
the lateral or branch road
said SO far from it plainly appearing from this
pltal guage that the exemption from taxation
said thereby extended to branch roads, it seen
II by US entirely clear that the words used
RS of words of limitation, and in terms confined
Is of powers, rights and privileges granted to t
BORA relating to the laying out, the construc
I'M the repair and the operation of the brant
and The powers, rights and privileges CO.
IS OF red by the preceding sections upon the
ebru pany in respect TO the main road, ant
gton lands through which it might pass embI
nged the rights and powers necessary for the Il
eldon out construction. repair, maintenance
1867 operation of railroad, including the Z
assed of eminent domain in the various forms
ming exercise; in short the positive rights or
I'D by eaaS without which he brorch road. :
This not be constructed or successfully wo
IS for but which did not in themselves If rclud
eces munity from taxation, privilege havir
E, for relation to the laying out. construction
main or preservation of the road
I'd IN In Railroad COMPANY V. Cor1missic
|, and 1o3 y. ; i the Annapolis and Elk I
road Railroad Company was invested wi!
the rights and powers necessary to the
Court struction and repair of its railroad, ar
iings, that purpose was to "have and use
hnd- powers and privileges" and be subject
and obligations contained in certain enume
: year sections of the charter of the
ted a timore and Ohio Railroad Com
Dad at Among these sections was one
ahfax tanning this provision: And the sha
otland the capital stock of the said company sh
as ex deemed and considered personal estate
n Pitt shall be exempt from the imposition O
to"h Tax OI uuitlth by the states asserting
all a law 1t was held that exemption from
ranch ton was not one Of the privileges of III
ak for timore and Ohio Company which tn
It was company was permitted 10 have and
t pur since the powers an1 privileges conferred
harter only such as were necessary to the
n road struction, repair and use of the
'ers of road. And railroad Company v Gain
as the I. 5. 697 and Morgan V. Louisiana,
lngton 5. PIT, where similar rulings were
ION to were cited and approved.
aintiff The language of the section under c
, same Grafton requires the same constrr
ads IN although the section relates to branch
lch, IS of the same company and not to the 70
Hope different companies The fact tn:
On and branches may be component parts
ength. organic whole; that ''the subscribers
max main road and the branches shall con
'ad be- but one company, and their rights of
branch erty and estate shall be in common a
been separate" (S2I,) does not change tn,
at the for restrictive words cannot be wrestet
invest their apparent meaning because used
S. same charter and with regard to the Ct