Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/89007/keokuk-hamilton-bridge-co-vs-illinois
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:24:24+00:00

Document:
Appellant Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Co.
In Keokuk &c.; Bridge Co. v. People, 161 Ill. 132, it was ruled that in fixing the value for taxation the assessor acts judicially, and the courts cannot revise his assessment on the mere ground of erroneous valuation; that, on an application for judgment for delinquent taxes, it may be shown that the tax is unauthorized by law, or is assessed on property not subject to taxation, or that the property has been fraudulently assessed at too high a rate; that the capital stock of a corporation formed by the consolidation of corporations of different states is properly taxable in one of said states so far as the corporation of that state is concerned; that the kind of property denominated in the revenue law of Illinois "capital stock" does not mean shares of stock, either separate or in the aggregate, but designates the property of the state corporation subject to taxation as a homogeneous unit partaking of the nature of personalty, and subject to the burdens imposed on it by the State of its creation. The judgment was reversed because the assessment was illegal in including a certain number of feet of the bridge which was located in the State of Iowa.
"The company was chartered by the State of Kentucky to build and operate a bridge, and the state could properly include the franchises it had granted in the valuation of the company's property for taxation. Central Pacific Railroad Company v. California, 162 U. S. 91 . The regulation of tolls for transportation over the bridge considered in Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Company v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204 , presented an entirely different question."
And see Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 622 .
In Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 , it was held that where a federal question is raised in the state courts, the party who resorts to this Court cannot raise another federal question not connected with it which was not raised in any of the courts below.
manner. Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648 .
173 U. S. 173 U.S. 198, 173 U. S. 199 -200.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.