Case Name: The Pennsylvania Railroad Company versus The City of Pittsburgh. (Four Cases.); The Pennsylvania Company versus Same; The Citizens' Passenger Railway Company of Pittsburgh versus Same
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1883-11-06
Citations: 104 Pa. 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Pennsylvania Railroad Company versus The City of Pittsburgh. (Four Cases.) The Pennsylvania Company versus Same. The Citizens’ Passenger Railway Company of Pittsburgh versus Same.
Judges: Before Mercur, C. J., Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett and Green, JJ. Clark, J., absent.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 522–558

Head Matter:
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company versus The City of Pittsburgh. (Four Cases.) The Pennsylvania Company versus Same. The Citizens’ Passenger Railway Company of Pittsburgh versus Same.
1. Under the Act of January 4th 1S59 (P. L. 828), entitled “An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” — which provides: “ That all real estate situated in said city, owned or possessed by any railroad company, shall be, and is hereby made subject to taxation for cily purposes, the same as other real estate in said city,”' — the land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in the city of Pittsburgh, belonging to railroad companies, are liable to taxation for city purposes, notwithstanding the said land and buildings are such as are essential to enable said railroad corporations to exercise their franchises in the operation of their railroads.
2. Similar real estate of a passenger railway company in the city of Pittsburgh is taxable under the provisions of the said Act.
3. The mode of proceeding to assess and enforce payment of such taxes adopted in this case was justified by law.
November 6th 1883.
Before Mercur, C. J., Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett and Green, JJ. Clark, J., absent.
Writs of error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 ®f Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1883, Nos. 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 212.
These cases were, in the court below, actions of scire facias sur municipal liens, for taxes, by the city of Pittsburgh against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Pennsylvania Company operating the Pittsburgh, Port Wayne and Chicago Railway, and the Citizens’ Passenger Railway Company of Pittsburgh, respectively. Affidavits of defence were filed in each case, and also pleas of nunquam indebitatus. The parties, by agreement filed, waived trial by jury, and the cases were tried, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of April 22d 1874 (P. L. 109), before Stowe, P. J., whose findings of fact and conclusions of law in the several cases were as follows:
City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
Finding of facts, No. 584, March Term 1882.
The following facts appear from the evidence and admissions of the parties in the case :
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company was incorporated by 'an Act of Assembly, approved April 13th 1846 (P. L. 312), with authority to construct a railroad, one terminus of which should be in the city of Pittsburgh ; and to purchase, hold, use and enjoy lands, tenements and hereditaments such as may be necessary or convenient for the making and con-, structing of the railroad, or for furnishing materials therefor, and for the accommodation of depots, offices, warehouses, machine houses, toll houses, engine and water stations, and other appropriate appurtenances, and for persons and tilings employed or used in or about the same (section 2).
In the year 1879 taxes for city purposes were assessed by the proper authorities of the city of Pittsburgh upon a certain property situated in the First ward of said city, and described in the lien filed February 17th 1882, as lot 660x110, Liberty street, from Water street to Third street, one large frame freight depot. This property, as the evidence discloses, is one of the terminal freight stations of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and is such property as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the railroad as such, and strictly necessary for its proper operation in exercising its franchises. The property is used exclusively for railroad purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed. It was not then, and is not now, assessed as taxable for county purposes. It was acquired by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in part by appropriation proceedings under its charter, and in part by conveyances in fee simple, and in part by a city ordinance as hereinafter explained.
The acquisition of said property for railroad purposes was expressly authorized by an Act approved February 17th 1854 (P. L. 76j, and an Act approved April 21st 1854 (P. L. 453). The right of the company to lay its rails over and through the streets of the city of Pittsburgh, so as to connect 'with this property, was expressly granted by an ordinance of said city enacted on. the 15th day of June, 1848. An alley, known as Bell’s alley, and which extended from Liberty street to Exchange alley, through the middle of the property, was vacated by an ordinance of the city dated May 9th 1854, and the use of the ground occupied by said alley granted to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, said company paying the city therefor at the same rate that they paid for adjoining property, and with a proviso that whenever the said ground should cease to be used for the purpose of a depot the same should revert to the city.
An Act of Assembly, approved January 4th 1859 (P. L. 828), entitled “ An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” gave additional powers to the city of Pittsburgh with respect to taxation. Section 1 authorized the levy and collection of a license upon pawnbrokers, and authorized the enacment of a penalty for the non-payment thereof. Section 2 authorized and empowered the levy and collection of a tax upon retailers and auctioneers, and provided that the tax so levied should be collected as other taxes are now by law collected, and should be a lien until paid upon all property owned by parties assessed, in like manner as prescribed, with reference to taxes upon real estate under then existing laws. Section 4 authorized the levy and collection of a business tax; and section 5 provides that this latter tax should be retained and deducted by cashiers, treasurers or other officers having charge of corporations upon which the tax was levied, amd that upon a failure to pay the same the property of the corporation should be subject to levy and sale by any ward constable upon a warrant to be issued by the city treasurer. And provided, also, “ And all taxes levied in pursuance of this Act may be recovered as debts of similar amounts are recoverable by law.”
Section 8 is in these words : “ That all real estate situated in said city owned or possessed by any railroad company shall be and is hereby made subject to taxation for city purposes, the same as other real estate in said city.”
It is under this section that the city now claims a right to assess and recover the taxes claimed in this suit. The lien in this ease filed was filed pursuant to the provisions of an Act entitled “ An act in relation to cities of the second class, providing for the levy, collection and disbursement of taxes and water rents,” approved the 22d day of March, 1877 (P. L. 16). This Act does not name the subjects of taxation. It provides, however, that taxes and water rents shall be payable in instalments during certain months, in the Act named, and provides also for the appointment by the city treasurer of an officer to be denominated “ Collecter of Delinquent Taxes.” When taxes are delinquent under the Act it becomes the duty of the city-treasurer to prepare lists of such delinquent taxes and furnish the same to the collector.
The act then provides, section 9 : “ Upon lists aforesaid being furnished to such collector, he shall immediately thereafter proceed to collect all such delinquent taxes and water rents either out of the personal or real estate of such delinquent owner, wherever the same may be found, and for such purpose he shall be and is hereby invested with full authority to levy on and sell the personal property after the tax and water rents have become delinquent thirty days, and the real estate of any owner where the taxes or water rents remain unpaid for six months may be sold by direction of such collector.
“It shall be the duty of- such collector to procure an accurate description of the real estate upon which said delinquent taxes have been assessed if the same is not given on the assessor’s books, the costs thereof to be charged against such 'owner not to exceed in any case one dollar, and to tile liens therefor in the office of the prothonotary.” ....
And section 11 provides : “ All taxes and water rents levied for any purpose in cities of the class aforesaid, shall remain liens until fully paid and satisfied, and shall not be divested by any judicial sale, except to the extent to which distribution shall be made out of the proceeds of said sale.”
This Act has a general repealing clause of all Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with it.
An Act approved the 28th day of March, 1872 (P. L. 606), entitled “ An Act giving power to the councils of the city of Pittsburgh to equalize the valuation of the taxable property within the city for city purposes,” provides (inter alia), section 2, “ That the said councils of the city of Pittsburgh shall take for city purposes the aggregate valuation of the taxable property within said city as assessed for county purposes, and in altering, revising or equalizing said valuation for city purposes, they shall not increase the aggregate valuation beyond the aggregate amount assessed for county purposes within the city.
An Act approved the 5th day of May, 1876 (P. L. 124), entitled “ An Act providing for the classification of real estate for the purposes of taxation and for the appointment of assessors in cities of the second class” provides in its first section, for the election of a Board of Assessors ; and in its second section provides as follows: “ That said Board of Assessors shall make an assessment of all subjects of taxation now by law or hereafter made subject to taxation for city purposes, and shall take as the basis of such assessment, the assessments as returned by the ward assessor of the several wards of said city to the County Commissioners, a copy of which shall be furnished to said board by the said County Commissioners of the county in which said city is situated, and shall have power to revise, equalize or alter such assessments by increasing or reducing the valuations, either in individual cases or by wards or parts of wards, to add to such lists of assessments any subject of taxation subject to taxation as aforesaid omitted therefrom, and attach a valuation thereto.”
It is contended upon the part of the railroad company that taxes claimed in these proceedings are not collectible for the following reasons:
1st. Because the term “ real estate ” in the classification of the tax laws has no application to real property which is indispensable to a railroad as such and constitutes part of its franchise.
2d. Because the only proper subjects of assessment for the purposes of taxation by the city of Pittsburgh arc such as are the subjects of assessment and taxation for county purposes, and,
3d. Because the remedy provided for the collection of these taxes is by a proceeding in rem, and that the property described in the liens cannot be sold or divested of its public use, and that the statutory remedy is exclusive.
Same v. Same.
Finding of facts, No. 587, March Term 1882.
In the year 1881 taxes for city purposes were assessed by the proper authorities of the city of Pittsburgh upon a certain property situated in the Third ward of the city of Pittsburgh, and described in the lien filed Feb. 17th 1882, as lot 36x60, Cherry alley, corner of Oak alley, two two-story brick dwellings, one three-story brick smoke-house. Lot 33x74, Oak alley, corner of Railroad alley; one three-story building. Lot 31.3^-inches, Liberty street, 79.9J inches, Cherry alley, averaging 98 feet deep to Railroad alloy, one three story brick hotel building. Lot 250x120, Grant street from Seventh avenue to Plum alley. Lot 250x120, Grant street to private alley between Seventh avenue and Liberty street. Triangular lot 158, averaging 65, Grant street and Liberty street.
Upon all of this property, except the last three items named, the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. paid taxes in fullas claimed by the city. The last three items, as the evidence discloses, constitute together one of the freight stations of the Pennsylvania Railroad Co., and constitute a property such as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the railroad as such, and strictly necessary for its proper operation in exercising its franchises; it is used exclusively for railroad purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed. It was not then and is not now assessed as taxable for county purposes.
The right of the company to lay its rails over and through the streets of the city of Pittsburgh, so as to connect with this property is expressly granted and recognized by several ordinances of said city.
An Act of Assembly, approved January 4th 1859 (P. L. 828), entitled “ An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” gave additional powers to the city of Pittsburgh with respect to taxation, etc., etc., as in finding at No. 584, March Term 1882, supra.
Same v. Same.
Finding of facts, No. 5S8, March Term 1882.
In the year 1880, taxes for city purposes were assessed by the proper authorities of the city of Pittsburgh upon a certain property situated in the Fourth ward of said city, and described in the lien filed February 17th 1882, as lot 30x120, Liberty, between Thiid and Fourth streets, two-story brick dwelling; lot 140x110, Liberty street, corner of Eleventh street, less right of way, Slate office. Lot 60x68, Liberty street, corner of Third, one two-story brick office building.
Upon item in the lien filed described as lot 140x110, Liberty street, corner of Eleventh street, less right of way, Slate office, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company paid taxes as assessed by the city. The remainder of the property in said lien described constitutes the freight offices of the company, used in connected with Duquesne Freight Depot, and is such property as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the railroad as such, and strictly necessary for its proper operation in exercising its franchises. The property is used exclusively for railroad purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed. It was not then; and is not now, assessed as taxable for county purposes.
An Act of Assembly, approved January 4th 1859 (P. L, 828), entitled “An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” gave additional powers to the city of Pittsburgh with respect to taxation, &c., &c., as in finding at No. 584, March Term 1882, supra.
Same v. Same.
Finding of facts, No. 593, March Term 1882.
In the year 1880, taxes for city purposes were assessed by the proper authorities of the city of Pittsburgh, upon a certain property situated in the Ninth ward of said city, and described in the lien filed February 17th 1882, as lot averaging 330x260, Liberty street to Faber street, from Washington street to Elm street, less right of way of Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Railwaj', and Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway, one small freight depot, one round-house for twenty engines, one one-story machine and blacksmith shop. Lot 1702x210, Liberty street to south side of Quarry, beginning at Elm street, including Elm, thence eastwardly to ward line at Fifteenth street, less right of way of Pennsylvania Railroad, one two-story brick depot and shed, one two-story brick gas house, two ' coal yards, machinery. Lot 332x200 Quarry street south side to alley from Elm street to Twelfth street.. Lot 325, averaging 87, Quarry street, south side, betweep Twelfth and Thirteenth streets. Lot 865, averaging 203, Quarry street-, south side, between Thirteenth and Fifteenth streets. Lot 50x50, Washington street.
On the items of property described in the lien, two coal yards and lot 50x50, Washington street, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company paid taxes as assessed by the city. The remaining property described in the lien, as the evidence discloses, is covered entirely with tracks, passenger station, roundhouses and ways of approach to the passenger station, and buildings used in connection with the railroad. There is included therein the Union Station, which is the Pennsylvania Railroad Company’s terminal passenger station in the city of Pittsburgh, used also by a number of western lines centering in said city, and also the Pittsburgh yard, used by all these companies ; according to the evidence, a railroad train comes or goes from this station on an average of each three minutes of every twenty-four hours, and not less than 17,000 persons daily make use of said station. A very large portion of the property described is made up of certain streets of the city of Pittsburgh, which were surrendered to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, by authority of Acts of the legislature, and ordinances of the city, for railroad purposes. The entire property is such as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the railroad as such, and strictly necessary for its proper operation in exercising its franchises. It is used exclusively for railroad purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed. It was not then, and is not now, assessed as taxable for county purposes. It was acquired by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in part by appropriation proceedings under its charter, and in part by conveyances in. fee simple, and in part by virtue of legislation, state and municipal, authorizing the vacation of certain streets as before stated.
The acquisition of said property by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for railroad purposes, was authorized by legislation as follows:
1. “ An Act to authorize the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to purchase and hold certain real estate in the city of Pittsburgh,” approved February 7th 1856, P. L. 33.
2. “ An Act relative to the removal of the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from a portion of Liberty street, in the city of Pittsburgh,” approved April 5th I860, P. L. 667.
3. “An Act extending the term for the removal of the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from a portion of Liberty street, in the city of Pittsburgh,” approved April 1st 1863, P. L. 194.
4. “ An Act relative tp taking certain ground in the city of Pittsburgh by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company,” approved April 18th 1863, P. L. 512.
5. “ A further supplement to an Act relative to the removal of the tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from a portion of Liberty street in the city of Pittsburgh, approved April 5th 1860,” approved April 20th 1864, P. L" 5Íé.
6. “ A farther supplement to an Act relative to the removal of the tracks of the Pennsylvania Pailroad Company from a portion of Liberty street, in the city of Pittsburgh, approved April 5th 1860,” approved March 2Íst 1865, P. L. 466.
7. “An ordinance granting certain privileges to the Pennsylvania Pailroad Company,” ordained June 15th 1848.
8. “An ordinance changing the grade of Liberty street, between Wayne and O’Hara streets,” ordained August 19th 1858.
9. “ An ordinance' to enable the Pennsylvania Pailroad Company to remove its tracks from a portion of Liberty street, in the city of Pittsburgh,” ordained December 12th 1861.
A large number of streets, public alleys, and passage ways of the city of Pittsburgh, herein before referred to, were vacated pursuant to the foregoing legislation and are included in the property described in the lien, all of which are now used exclusively for railroad purposes, and are necessary to the operation of the company in the exercise of its franchise.
An Act of Assembly, approved January 4th 1859, P. L. 828, entitled “An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” gave additional power to the city of Pittsburgh, with respect to taxation, &c., &c., as in finding at No. 584, March Term 1882, supra.
Same v. The Pennsylvania Company, operating the Pittsburgh, Port Wayne and Chicago Railway.
finding of FiCTS, No. 589, March Term 1882.
The following facts appear from the evidence and admissions of the parties in the case:
The Pennsylvania Company was incorporated by an Act of Assembly, approved April 7th 1870 (P. L. 1025), with power (inter alia) to lease, manage and operate railroads. The Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Hailway Company, a corporation duly existing under the laws of Pennsylvania, by appropriate proceedings, leased its entire railway property and appurtenances to the said Pennsylvania Company, and the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Company is now being operated and managed by the said Pennsylvania Company under said lease.
Said Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Company has authority (inter alia) to construct a railroad, one terminus of which should be in the city of Pittsburgh, and to purchase, hold, use and enjoy lands, tenements and hereditaments necessary or convenient for the making and constructing of the railroad and the operation of the same.
In the year 1880 taxes for city purposes were assessed by the proper authorities of the city of Pittsburgh, upon certain property of said Pittsburgh, Port "Wayne & Chicago Railway Company, now in the use and occupation of the Pennsylvania Company, situate in the Fourth ward of said city, and described in: the lien filed February 17th 1882, as follows :
Lot 360, averaging 596, Penn avenue, through to the river, comer of Tenth street, less right of way, five-story brick office building, three-story brick building, two small' freight depots, one large freight depot shed.
! Upon so much of this property as is not in actual use for railroad purposes the defendant company paid taxes as assessed by the city. That portion of the property upon which taxes were not paid is, as the evidence discloses, the terminal freight station of the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Company, in the city of Pittsburgh and its general offices used in connection with its railroad business, and is such property as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the railroad as such, and strictly necessary for its proper operation in exercising its franchise. The property is used exclusively for railroad purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed. It was not then and is not now assessed as taxable for county purposes.
An Act of Assembly, approved January 4th 1859 (P. L. 828), entitled “ An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional-revenue,” gave additional powers to the city of Pittsburgh with respect to taxation. Section 1 authorized the levy and collection of a license upon pawnbrokers; and authorized the enactment of a penalty for the non-payment thereof. Section 2 authorized and empowered the levy and collection of a tax upon retailers and auctioneers, and provided that the tax so levied should be collected as other taxes are now by law collected, and should be a lien until paid upon all prop•erty owned by parties assessed in like manner as prescribed with reference to taxes upon real estate under then existing .laws. Section 4 authorized the levy and collection of a business tax ; and section 5 provides that this latter tax should be retained and deducted by cashiers, treasurers or other officers having charge of corporations upon which the tax was levied, .and that upon a failure to pay the same the property of the corporation should be subject to levy and sale by any ward ■constable upon a warrant to be issued by the city treasurer. And provided, also, “ And all taxes levied in pursuance of this Act may be recovered as debts of similar amounts are recover■able by law.”
Section 3 is in these words : “ That all real estate situated ■in said city owned or possessed by any railroad company shall bo. and is hereby made subject to taxation for city purposes the same as other real estate in said city,” &c., &e., as in finding at No. 584, March Term 1882, supra.
OPINION OF THE . COURT, IN ALL OF THE FOREGOING OASES.
There are several principles of law involved in this controversy so well settled that it is needless to do more than state them here.
1st. Under the constitution of this state the taxing power is vested absolutely in the legislature, and is limited only by its discretion.
2d. To carry out the purposes of municipal governments the legislature may vest in them powers of taxation.
3d. The legislature may tax railroad property either for state or municipal purposes, except where in special cases it would violate, the charter of some particular company,
4th. The law is -settled that the words “ real estate ” in the general tax law of the state do not include or make liable to taxation the real estate of a railroad company, such as road-bed, depots, machine shops, and other land necessary for the operation of the road.
It is not alleged here that the charter of the defendant is such as exempts it from the taxing power of the Commonwealth. And the question upon which the whole matter turns, is the proper construction of|the Act of Janury 4th 185.9.
What then did the legislature mean when it passed the Act in question, and in terms declared “ that all real estate situate in said city (Pittsburgh), owned or possessed.by any railroad company, shall be and is hereby made subject to taxation for city purposes, the same as other real estate in said city?”
At fi.rst view the intention would seem to be too apparent to admit of doubt. The language is clear and explicit. Its ordinary meaning is clear and unquestionable. Is there anything in law as it existed prior to the Act, or at,the time it was passed, which should cause a different interpretation to be given to it? .1 have failed to see any. Indeed, the natural signification of the terms of the Act are strongly intensified by the law as distinctly ruled by the Supreme Court and generally understood prior to its passage.
' Under the words “real estate” in the general law, property such as here involved, could not be taxed for city or county purposes. All other real estate than that owned and used by railroad companies, for strictly railroad purposes, was liable tq such taxation. If the construction urged by defendant is correct that statute was useless. If it gave the city no right.'to tax railroad property, before exempt, why was it enacted ? To so hold would imply either great ignorance or dishonesty in the legislature. This we can not do. We must give the A.et the same construction that applies to all others standing in like position. To my mind it is clear that the legislature meant by the Act in question to subject the real estate of railroad companies, previously exempt, to taxation for municipal purposes, and that all the real estate assessed by the plaintiff is subject to the tax imposed.
I am also of opinion that the other objections raised by defendant, as to regularity of assessment and form of proceeding, should be. overruled, and that plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this case for the amount claimed.
July 20th 1S83, the foregoing decision ordered to be filed, and that judgment be entered thereon by the prothonotary in favor of plaintiff for $1,834.16, unless exceptions are filed thereto within thirty days after notice hereof, said notice to bo given by the prothonotary to the parties or their attorneys forthwith.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DECISION OE THE COURT IN EACH OE THE FOREGOING CASES.
1st. The court erred in deciding that the term “ real estate ” in the Act of the 4th day of January 1859, has any application to the property described in the lien in this case filed, or that said property is real estate witliin the meaning of that term as used in said Act.
2d. The court erred in deciding that such portion of the property described in the lien in this case filed, as does not belong, to the defendant company in fee simple, is within the purview of said Act of the 4th day of January 1859.
3d. The court erred in not holding that it was beyond the power of the assessing officers of the plaintiff city to include ás asssessable the property described in the lion in this case filed.
4th. The court erred in not holding that such portions of the property described in the lien in this case filed, as do not belong to the defendant company in fee simple, were not the subject of assessment for the purposes of taxation.
5th. The court erred in not holding that the property described in the lien in this case filed, was exempt from any proceeding such as this — that is to say, the court erred in not holding that said property was exempt from process in rem.
6th. The court erred in deciding that the defendant company’s property',. described in the lien filed, is subject to taxation by the jfiaiij tiff for city purposes.
City of Pittsburgh v. Citizens’ Passenger Railway Company of Pittsburgh.
FINDINGS OF FACT.
From the evidence and admissions of the parties, the following facts are found:
1. The lien was filed by the collector of delinquent taxes of the city of Pittsburgh under the provisions of an Act entitled “ An Act in relation to cities of the second class, providing for the levy, collection and disbursement of taxes and water rents,” approved March 22d 1877, P. L. 16, for taxes levied upon a lot of ground situated on'the north side of Butler street, in the city of Pittsburgh, between Forty-first and Forty-second streets, fronting on Butler street 125 feet, and extending northwardly, the same width, 150 feet; and having a largo brick stable erected thereon.
2. The taxes claimed were assessed for the year 1879, and amounted to the sum of $649.08; the said real estate being taxed the same as other real estate in said city.
3. The property was assessed by the proper city authorities, under the provisions of an Act of Assembly approved January 4th 1859, P. L. p. 828, entitled “ An Act to enable the City of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue,” the provisions of which-were as follows : Section 1 authorizing the levy and collection of a license upon pawnbrokers, and the imposition of a penalty for non-payment thereof. Section 2 authorizing the levy and collection of a tax upon retailers of liquors and auctioneers, arid provided that the same should be collected as other city taxes, and to be a lien upon all property owned by parties assessed in like manner as prescribed with reference to taxes upon real estate under then .existing laws. " Section 4 authorizing tlie levy and collection of taxes upon business of forwarding-and commission merchants, brokers, banks, insurance companies, &c. 'Section 5 provides that said tax-shall be retained ■ by-cashiers, treasurers, and other officers of corporations, and upon failure to pay the same, the property of the corporation shall be subject to levy and sale by any ward constable, upon a warrant to be issued by the City Treasurer; and, further, that .all-taxes levied in pursuance of this act may be recovered as debts of similar amounts are recovered by law. Section 3 is in these words: “That all real estate situated in said city owned or possessed by any railroad company shall be, and is hereby made, subject to taxation for city purposes, the same as other real estate in said city.” ,
The provisions of the Act of March 22d 1877, under which the lien was filed, are as follows: Sections 1 to 6, inclusive,provide the mode of assessing taxes and the time.of payments The 7th section authorizes the appointment, by the City Treasurer, of a Collector of Delinquent Taxes. Section 8 directs the treasurer to prepare lists of delinquent taxes, and place them in the hands of the collector. Section 9 provides as follows : “ Upon the lists aforesaid being furnished to such collector, he shall immediately thereafter proceed to collect all such delinquent taxes either, out of the personal or real estate of such delinquent owner, wherever the same may be found ; and for such purposes he shall be and is hereby invested with full authority to levy on and sell the personal property after the taxes or water rents have become delinquent thirty days; and the real estate of any owner, when the taxes or water rents remain unpaid for six months, may be sold by direction of such collector. It shall be the duty of such collector to procure an accurate description of the real estate upon which said delinquent taxes have been assessed, if the same is not given on the Assessor’s books, the cost thereof to be charged against such owner, not to exceed in any case one dollar, and to file liens therefor in the office of the Prothonotary.” Section 10 provides for monthly returns of collections made. Section 11 is as follows : “ All taxes and water rents levied for any purpose in cities of the class aforesaid shall remain liens until fully paid and satisfied, and shall not be divested by any judicial sale, except to the extent to which distribution shall be xnade out of the px’oceeds of such sale.” Section 12 provides that all taxes shall be liens upon real estate whether the real owner is named or not, and also provides for i’edemption by owner within one year after sale. Section 13 px’ovides that lists of unseated lands be advertised previous to entry in the office of the prothonotary. Sections 14 axxd 15 relate to procxiring descriptions of property, and section 16 is a genei'al i’epealing clause.
This Act does not specify the subjects of taxation.
4. The publication of delinquent taxes was made previous to filing liens, as required by the Act and the supplement thereto, approved March 15th 1878, P. L. p. 7.
5. The Act of March 30th 1S60, P. L. 364, section 3, provides that councils, in levying taxes, shall be authoxized to adjust the rates of taxation upon the different subjects now liable or that may hereafter be liable- to taxation for city pxirposes, without regard to limitations in former Acts.
By Act of Assembly entitled “An Act giving power to councils of the City of Pittsburgh to equalize the valuation of the taxable property within the City of Pittsbux'gh for city pui’poses,” approved March 28th 1872, P. L. 606, it is piwided [section 2] : “ That the said councils of the City of Pittsburgh shall take, for city purposes, the aggregate va-luatioxx of the taxable property within said city as assessed for county purposes, and in altering, revising, or equalizing said valuation for city purposes, they shall not increase the aggregate amount assessed for county purposes within the city,” And by an Act entitled “ An Act providing for the classification of real estate for purposes of taxation, and for the appointment of assessors in cities of the second class,” approved May 5th 1876, P. L.. 124, the councils were authorized to appoint assessors; and by section 2 it was provided : “ That said board of assessors shall make an assessment of all the subjects of taxation now'by law, or hereafter made, subject to taxation for city purposes, and shall take, as the basis of such assessments, the assessments as returned, by the ward assessors of the several wards of the city, to the County Commissioners of the county in which said city is situated ; and shall have power to revise, equalize, or alter such assessments by increasing or reducing valuations, either in individual cases or by wards or parts of wards, to add to such' lists of assessment any subject of taxation subject to taxation as aforesaid omitted therefrom, and attach a valuation thereto.”
6. The property against which the lien is filed in this case has not been assessed for county purposes. The Citizens’ Passenger Uaihvay Company, the defendant, was incorporated by an Act of Assembly, approved the 22d day of March 1859, P. L. 203, with power to lay out and construct and operate a railway from the intersection of Fifth and Liberty streets, and along Penn avenue, Greensburg Pike, and Butler street, in Borough of Lawrenceville, and the Lawrenceville and Sharps-burg Turnpike, to Sharpsburg, and with the right to purchase, take, and hold all such real and personal property as may be necessary and convenient to enable them to carry on the traffic of their said road. Section 9 is as follows: “The said railway company shall not be permitted to use and occupy any of the streets of the said city for the purposes of their railway, until the consent of the city councils is first thereto had, by ordinance duly passed ; nor shall the said company at any time alter or change the grade or line of any street without the consent of councils first had and obtained ; and the said company shall keep so much of the streets of said city as may be used and occupied by them in perpetual good repair, from curb to curb, at the proper expense and charge of the said company. Provided, further, that the said company, for and during the first five years after they shall commence running cars upon said road, shall pay into the city treasury,’ for the use of the city, the sum of twenty (20) dollars per year for each car run over the said road ; and for and during the five years next ensuing, the sum of thirty (30) dollars per year for each car, as aforesaid; and from thence, thereafter, the sum.of. forty doldollars per year for each car run over said road ; and also, for the first five years after they commence running cars upon said road, the said company shall pay into the city treasury, for the use of said city, three per cent, of the dividends or net profits of said company; and from thence, and thereafter, the said company shall pay into said treasury, for use of said city, five per cent, of the dividends or net profits of said company.” Section 10 provided that they should not occupy any street or road of the borough of Lawrenceville, or of any incorporated company, without the consent of said corporation, and upon failure to agree, then upon terms to be fixed by court.
7. The consent of all the authorities was duly obtained except the borough of Lawrenceville, as to which a decree was made by the court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny county,-at March session, 1859 Eo. 11.
The consent of the city of Tittsburgh was given by ordinance of April 14th 1859. Among the conditions are the following : (1.) To pay into the city treasury, for the use of the city, within one month after the cars commence running on said road, and at the same date annually, the sum due said city prescribed in section 9 of said Act of Assembly, for each car run over said road, viz., twenty dollars per annum for each car for the first five years from the date of the first payment; thirty dollars per annum for each car for the next five years thence next ensuing; and forty dollars per annum for each car thereafter run over said road ; but this shall not be held to apply to cars used on extraordinary occasions, such as holidays and fair days, or to cars reserved for use in case of accident or damage to others ; and the cars shall be numbered as drays and carriages are now numbered under the ordinance regulating licenses on such vehicles. (3.) To pay into the city treasmy, for the xise of the city, on the thii'd Monday in January and July, in each year, for the fix’st five years after they commence running cax’s upon said road, three per cent, of the net profits of said company ; and thence, thereafter, upon the same days in each year, five per cent, upon the net profits of said company. (5.) To keep that portion óf the streets through which the said road may pass in good repair, fi’om curb to curb, subject to the directions, of the l’ecoi'ding l'egulatox’, with privilege to appeal, in case of any disagreement with said regulatoi', to the committee on streets, whose decision shall be final; and any failure to comply with any of the foregoing conditions shall be held to woi’k as a revocation of the consent and piivileges gi'anted by this ox’dinance.
8. The railway was constructed in pursuance of the authority gi'anted by the Act of Assembly, and oi’dinance, decree, and agi'eements aforesaid, and has been since operated under them. ...
9. The charter of the Citizens’ Passenger Railway Company was the first granted for a road within the city of Pittsburgh, and all other charters subsequently granted contained similar provisions for taxes upon cars and dividends on net earnings, and repairs of streets.
The property, upon which the taxes claimed in this case were assessed, was purchased and is now owned by the defendant corporation in fee simple; is used wholly and solely for the purpose of stabling horses of said company, anfi is indispensable to the operation of said railway and the exercise of the public franchise granted to said company by its charter.
POINTS SUBMITTED IN WRITING.
Counsel for defendant asks the court to find, as matter of law: *
1st. That the word “ real estate,” as used in laws imposing taxation, does not include real property owned by corporations, and used by them in, and necessary for, the exercise of their corporate franchises; and therefore the Act of January 4th 1859, under which the city of Pittsburgh claimed the right to impose tax upon the property against which the lien in this case was filed, did not authorize the imposition of said tax.
2d. That the word “ railroad,” in the Act of January 4th 1859, did not include passenger railways, the construction of which was subsequently authorized, and upon which special taxes were imposed for city purposes.
3d. That the Acts of March 28th 1872, P. L. 606, and May 5th 1876, P. L. 124, limited the right of taxation for city purposes to property liable to assessment for county purposes; and it appearing that the property against which the lien in this case was filed was not assessed for county purposes, and it not appealing that it was by law assessed for county purposes, the authorities of the city of Pittsburgh were not authorized to make the assessment of taxes now claimed.
4th. That the property against which the lien in this case was filed, being necessary for the exercise of the franchises of the defendant corporation, cannot be sold upon a judgment against it ; and the proceeding in this case being in rem, the plaintiff cannot recover in this suit.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The views expressed in city of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., No. 584, March Term 1883, control this case, unless the charter of defendant, or some other special circumstance, will withdraw it from the effect of the conclusions there arrived at.
There are some apparent differences in the status of the two cases. The most obvious are, that defendant is incorporated under the name of “ railway ” company. It was not in existence at the date of the Act under which plaintiff claims the right to tax, and it was, and is now, compelled to pay a perpetual tax to the city for the privilege of using the streets, and also a yearly tax on dividends. Will any or all of these jnstify the conclusion that the Act does not comprehend the defendant? We think not. While there is a popular understanding that the expression ‘^passenger railways ” does not mean the great lines of road operated by steam power, yet it by no means follows that the term “ railroad ” does not properly include all passenger railways, for purposes of taxation. A railway is essentially a railroad. They mean the same thing, and are used indiscriminately in reference to our great inter-state lines. We have the Penn’a Railroad Co., and the Pittsburgh, E. W. & C. Railway Co. Nothing in defendant’s charter, so far as has been made to appear, will justify me in saying that the term railroad in the Act does not include passenger railways.
But it is very strenuously urged that' the defendant should not'be held for all. within the Act, because it is compelled, by other Acts, and ordinances of the city, to pay a tax to the city for the use of its franchises; and that to enforce this claim, would subject defendant to double taxation, and be manifestly unjust. It is true that courts will always seek to avoid such interpretation of a statute as would work injustice or oppression, or as would be in contravention to the general policy of the state; and, in a doubtful case, such considerations are entitled to great weight. But where the statute is unambiguous, and nothing appears showing that the intent of the legislature was different from that indicated by the terms of the Act itself, it is our duty to give it effect, however unjust and oppressive it may be. The remedy is with the legislature, not with the courts. But it does not strike us that the complaint of double taxation is well founded in this case. A tax imposed upon the-real estate of a railroad company used for stables is a very different thing from a tax imposed upon it for the use of the public highways for railway purposes.
Upon the whole, we can discover no sufficient reason for making a distinction between this and the case of the railroad company, and are therefore of opinion that defendant is liable to pay the taxes involved in this suit.
The points presented by defendant are answered in the fore-, going opinion, and are now specifically refused.
And now, July 21st 1883, the foregoing decision of the court directed to be filed in the office of prothonotary, and ordered that judgrnent.be entered thereon by the prothonotary in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, for the amount of its claim, viz., $693.99, unless exceptions are filed thereto within thirty days after notice hereof; said notice to be given by the prothonotary to the parties, or their attorneys, forthwith.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT.
The court erred in not finding, as matter of law:
1st. That the word “ real estate,” as used in laws imposing taxation, does not include real property owned by corporations, and used by them in, and necesssary for, the exercise of their corporate franchise ; and therefore, the act of January 4th 1859, under which the city of Pittsburgh claimed the right to impose tax upon the property against which the lien in this case was filed, did not authorize the imposition of said tax.
2d. That the word “railroad,” in the Act of January 4th 1859, did not include passenger railways, the construction of which were subsequently authorized, and upon which special taxes were imposed for city purposes.
3d. That the Acts of March 28th 1872, P. L. 606, and May 5th 1876, P. L. 124, limited the right of taxation for city purposes to property liable to assessment for county purposes; and it appearing that the property against which the lien in this case was filed was not assessed for county purposes, and it not appearing that it was by law assessed for county purposes, the authorities of the city of Pittsburgh were not authorized to make the assessment for taxes now claimed.
4th. That the property against which the lien in this case was filed, being necessary for the exercise of the franchises of the defendant corporation, cannot be sold upon a judgment against it; and the proceeding in this case being in rem, the plaintiff cannot recover in this suit.
The court subsequently entered final orders, dismissing the exceptions in all the said cases, and entering final judgment for the plaintiff in each case. The defendants thereupon took separate writs of error in each case, assigning for error, respectively, the action of the court in dismissing the said several exceptions, and in entering judgment in each case for the plaintiff.
Hampton & Dalzell, for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the Pennsylvania Company, plaintiffs in error.
Slagle & Wiley, for the Citizens’ Passenger Railway Co., plaintiffs in error.
D. T. Watson and W. G. Moreland (Thomas S. Bigelow with them), for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Mercur
delivered the opinion of the court, January 7th 1884.
These six cases were argued together. They present substantially the same question. The contention is, whether taxes, for city purposes, may lawfully be assessed, by the city of Pittsburgh on certain property situate therein, owned by these corporations ?
The property of the railroad companies consists of freight stations, offices and depots, round-house, machine shops, passenger stations and ground covered by tracks, and used as ways of approach to the stations and buildings used in connection with the railroads : and the property of the Passenger Railway Company is occupied for the stabling of horses of the company. It is found as a fact in each case, that the property is such as is ordinarily and properly pertinent to the several railroads, and to the railway, as such, and is strictly necessary for their proper operation in exercising their several franchises, that the property is used exclusively for such purposes, and was so used during the years for which the taxes in question were assessed,, and that the property was not then or now assessed as taxable for county purposes.
It is conceded, under the legislation existing prior to the Act of January 4th 1859, P. L. 828, that this property would not bo liable to taxation as real estate. Its exemption from such taxation was settled by a long line of cases, among which are: Ridge Turnpike Company v. Stoever, 6 W. & S. 378; Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company v. Northampton County, 8 Id. 337; Railroad v. Berks County, 6 Barr 70; Navigation Company v. Same, 1 Jones 202; Wayne County v. Del. & Hud. Canal Company, 3 Harris 351; N. Y. & Erie Railroad Co. v. Sabin, 2 Casey 242; West Chester Gas Company v. The County of Chester, 6 Id. 232; Carbon Iron Company v. Carbon County, 3 Wright 251.
While the language of previous Acts, subjecting teal estate to taxation, was broad enough in its general terms to include the public works of a corporation, used as such, with the necessary appurtenances, yet the courts held they were exempt from taxation as land, but were subject to it in another form: Coatesville Gas Co. v. County of Chester, 1 Out. 476. The cases rested on the presumed intention of the legislature, iu the absence of express declaration, not to subject such property to taxation as land. The power, however, of the legislature to make it subject to taxation as real estate, cannot be successfully denied. The taxing power in this Commonwealth is vested absolutely in the legislature, and when not prohibited by the Constitution, it is limited in the exercise of that power by its discretion only. It may tax every species of property perma nently within the limits of this state, not exempt by the Constitution thereof, or by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Whatever power it possesses it may delegate to a municipal government, to be legitimately exercised within its corporate limits: N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. v. Sabin, supra; Pitts., Ft. Wayne & Chicago R. R. v. Commonwealth, 16 P. F. Smith 74; In re Washington Avenue, 19 Id. 363; Butler's Appeal, 23 Id. 451. The fact that it may authorize the laying of a municipal tax which may be burdensome in its character, does not make it unconstitutional: Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 4 Norris 170; S. C., 14 Otto 78.
Legislative power to tax the property in question as real estate being clear, it remains only to consider whether the legislature has authorized it to be so taxed. This depends on the effect to be given to the Act of 4th January 1859. It is entitled " An Act to enable the city of Pittsburgh to raise additional revenue."' A very natural and effective way to raise more revenue, was to impose taxes on property which at that time was exempt from such taxation. Therefore section 3 of the Act declares " that all real estate situated in said city, owned or possessed by any railroad company shall be and is hereby made subject to taxation for city purposes, the same as other real estate in said city."
This Act contains no obscure language. It expresses no doubtful meaning. It speaks so clearly that it cannot be misunderstood. Its purpose is distinctly stated in the title. To that end the enacting clause provides that "all real estate" in the city belonging to any railroad company shall be " subject to taxation for city purposes the same as other real estate in the city." Other real estate in the city was then taxable for city purposes. Up to that time all the real, estate of any railroad company was not subject to taxation the same as other real estate for the purpose named. Thenceforth, for that purpose, no distinction was to be made between the real estate of a railroad corporation, and that owned by any individual: The lawmakers are presumed to have known that this property was then exempt from such taxation. All other real estate of any railroad company outside of that in question was already subject to this form of taxation. Unless the intention of the'Act was to bring this property within the taxing power of the city, this section has no meaning. We cannot impute to the legislature the folly of assuming that it did not intend to produce a practical result for the benefit of the city. The fact that such property had theretofore been held to be an incident to the corporate franchises of the railroad companies, matters not. It nevortheless was real estate. Land purchased and owned by- copartners as partnership' .property, may, for many purposes, be considered personal property, yet for all purposes of taxatiou, it is real estate. The fact that this property was held and used by the railroad companies to facilitate the working of their roads, did not destroy its character as real estate.
. ' It is claimed that the property is exempt from taxation as real estate, under the authority of "Wayne County v. Delaware and Hudson Canal Co., supra, notwithstanding the Act of 1859. At first view that case might appear to sustain this claim. A careful examination of the case, however, leads to a different conclusion. The Act authorizing the canal company in that case, to improve the navigation of the river, declared that " the property of said company, whether real or personal, within this state, shall at all times be liable for its debts and subject to taxation in like manner as similar property held by an individual or by a corporation now is or may be." The preamble to the Act recites the fact that the canal company had been incorporated by the legislature of the state of New York : and by the Act of our legislature of 1st April 1825, P. L. 141, the company was authorized "to purchase and hold any quantity of lands situate at any place within ten miles of the waters of the Lackawaxen, not exceeding five thousand acres." Undoubtedly the purpose of the clause first quoted was to make all the property of the company within this state liable for its debts and subject to taxation. How liable, and how subject ? It did not attempt to create any new forms of proceeding: but to preserve and apply the forms of law then applicable to each kind of property. Its property was to be liable for its debts and subject' to taxation, " as similar property held by an individual or by a corporation." That is, so much of its property as was subject to sale on execution or to taxation as individual property might be so sold and taxed ; but such other property as it held and used as essentially necessary for the enjoyment of its franchise was to be held liable for its debts and subject to taxation in like manner as similar property held by a corporation — that is, by'other corporations. The exemption of such property of a corporation from taxation as real estate, was then well recognized law.' The Act does not contain anything indicating an intention to change the manner of its taxation. The court therefore ruled that case On the general principle recognized in other cases where the charters did not contain such language. It is not. applicable to' the present case.
we discover nothing to exempt the Passenger Railway Company from the operation of the Act of 1859. Such a company is within the intent and spirit of the Act, making its real estate subject to taxation as such: Hestonville, Mantua and Fairmount Passenger Railroad Company v. Philadelphia, 8 Norris 210.
The alleged error in the mode of proceeding to make the assessments, was not so strongly pressed in the argument. We think the several Acts of Assembly justified the proceeding. The Act of 1859 subjecting this property to taxation declares: " all taxes levied in pursuance of this Act may be collected as debts of similar amounts are recoverable by law." The Acts of 22d March 1877, P. L. 16; 28th March 1872, P. L. 606, and 5th of May 1876, P. L. 124, appear to justify the mode of proceeding. We discover no error in the judgments.
Judgment affirmed in each,ease.