Case Name: The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company v. Hayne
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1865-06-26
Citations: 19 Iowa 137
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company v. Hayne.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 137–144

Head Matter:
The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company v. Hayne.
1. Railroad ! iands : taxation. Lands included in tbe grants for the construction of railroads in this State, made by the act of congress of May 15th, 1856, are liable to taxation by the State, after the railroad companies to which they were granted become possessed of the unconditional title in fee and before they have been alienated by said companies.
Appeal from Wapello District Court.
Monday, June 26.
On the 15th- of May, 1856, an act of congress was approved, granting to this State, lands in aid of the construction' of certain lines of railroad, including that of the plaintiff. By an act of the General Assembly of this State, approved July 14th, 1856, these lands were accepted, and granted at that date to the several railroad companies therein mentioned, coupled with the rights, powers, privileges and conditions that were annexed to the congressional grant. By a supplemental act, passed January, 1857, for the purpose of carrying out the objects, of said grant, said companies were authorized to raise money by deed of trust or mortgage, upon all or any part of said lands, applying the money realized therefrom exclusively to the construction and equipment of said road. In October, 1858, that portion of these lands which fell to and was granted to the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company were mortgaged by said company for the purpose of raising money to construct their line of road, having been previous to that time selected and identified. A few tracts of these lands are situated in the county of Wapello, which has assessed and levied a tax on the same for county, State and other pur- . poses, for the years 1859, 1860, 1861 and 1862.
It is charged that the defendant intends to enforce a collection of these taxes by a sale of the property, unless restrained by a process of the court, and this' suit has been commenced by the plaintiff for that purpose, alleging in the petition, among other things, the above facts, and also that the lands have not yet been sold; that the mortgage aforesaid is still unsatisfied; that the assessment and collection of said taxes would be-illegal, and without authority of law; that the power to tax does not arise until after these lands are sold by the railroad company. The defendant demurred to the petition, and also for the same reason made a motion to dissolve the injunction "and dismiss the bill, both of which were sustained, and the plaintiff appeals.
D. Borer for the appellant.
Hendershott & Burton for the appellee.

Opinion:
Cole, J.
IJpon the argument of this cause, it was suggested that there might be a doubt, upon the avermentthe whether the plaintiff had fully performed the conditions annexed to the grant,' gQ ag ^ entitled to the fee in the lands taxed.
The counsel for the plaintiff, therefore, stated that it was the purpose of the pleader to so state, and that the conditions were not only performed by constructing the road through these lands, but the same had been properly certified to the plaintiff, after certificate of completion of the railroad through them, by the governor of Iowa, and duly recognized by the federal government through its proper department.
The counsel for the respective parties, then in open court, agreed that the only question arising upon the petition and the demurrer and motion to dissolve the injunction, as determined by the court below, and- the sole question presented for the adjudication of this court, was, whether the lands included in the grant are liable to taxation by the State after the railroad company became possessed of the unconditional title in fee, but before the same are alienated by it ?
The counsel for appellant, in his elaborate argument at bar, in support of his position that the lands were not liable' to taxation, cited and relied upon Weston et al. v The City Council of Charleston, 2 Peters, 449; Dobbins v. The Commissioners of Erie Co., 16 Id., 435; McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 116; and Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 620.
After that full and deliberate consideration which the .importance of the question involved justly demands,'we are agreed in the opinion that the case at bar is not within the principle upon which the cases cited were based, and that the lands are liable to taxation by the State. That this liability to taxation is as complete after the railroad company has performed the requisite conditions and become possessed of the unconditional legal title, as it will be after such title shall become vested by voluntary alienation or otherwise, in private individuals.
In view of the purpose for which our decision is desired, and the course to be pursued, as announced by counsel in argument in case our opinion was adverse to plaintiff, we do not feel called upon to discuss at length the question made, but simply to announce that the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.