Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-12-09
Cumberland County Rescript.

City of Portland VS.. New England Tel
ephone IL Telegraph Co.
| WhitehouSe. ].
| IN an action to recover a tax as
sessed by the city upon the conduits
OF the defendant company. as real es-
tate, in addition to an excise tax as
seSsed upon the defendant by the
State. the following facts appeared. TIE
cOnduitS in question We're laid in The
streets of Portland under the author
| ny If Section l, Chapter 2Of of m.
Laws Of 1891, by virtue of license There
| for, ".':,nt.h by the municipal uf:r.er
according 10 4, 2lilalioES established by
| thnin. l'ri'r IheS" regulations The To-
ca,I"L ,.,... ,:.,-. e., .t-v,.; made
was S1bJ.ct 10 r,N or.ttioI am |.I.:.i. -.
AT the order of the municipal n1ccrs
Inc uuailty Of permanency in The an
| n3xalion did not exist and the con-
Quits We're not laid for the benefit of
the freehold. 1t is also provided by
Section IL of Chapter s, Revised Stat
uteS, that the excise tax assessed up-
| on the company "Shall be in lieu Of
al taxes upon its propertv
used in The conduct of it's telephone or
tclesrap phi business, including the poles,
wires, irsulators," etc But the statute
contains no specification of the con-
duitS of the company among the items
OF personal property thus exempted.
The method of conveying telephone
wires by Subtcrranean cOnduitS instead
Of poles, had not been adopted, how
ever, 3t the time of the passage of the
original act Of 1888 providing for the
taxation Of telephone companies. Held,
That the intention with which an
rticle is annexed to the freehold has
come Z, be recognized as a cardinal
rule and most important criterion by
which to determine its character as Il
fixture; that the attendant facts and
circumstances are chiefly valuable as
evidence of such intention; and that
this controlling intention Is not the Sc
cret intention with which the article is
affixed. but the intention which the law
deduceS from all the circumstances of
The annexation.
That there was nothing in the nature
OF cOn1GitS. the mode and purpose of
annexation or the relation of the par
ties to each other to warrant the in
ference that the defendant company in
these pipes or that the owners of the
soil expected to secure title to them by
annexation. and that being laid under
a license revOcable at the will of the
municipal officers 50 far as any partic-
ular highway or location was con-
cerned. they did not become a constit-
uent Of the freehold.
That it was the purpose of the Leg
islature TO impose upon the telephone
ilege of doing business in this State
and to exempt all personal property
used in its business, leaving only its
real estate. such as land and buildings
for local taxation; and that the cues
ton whether the expression of one
thing III the statute is to operate as the
exclusion of the other is one of inten-
ton TO be gathered from an examina-
ton of all parts of the statute by the
aid of the usual rules of Interpretation.
That under the circumstances of this
case. the condui,S of the defendant
company in the streets of Portland be-
ing in fact a part of the property used
by the company in the conduct of its
business. are properly held to embrace
in the term property" referred to in
Section Al of Chapter s, Revised Stat
utes. that they are not excluded by the
express mention of other items of ex-
emptcd property in the same section
and that they are not subject to taxa
ton by the city of Portland as real es-
tate.
Judgment for the defendant