Case Name: Pa. Co. for Ins. on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Com.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1889-01-07
Citations: 2 Monag. 776
Docket Number: No. 29
Parties: Pa. Co. for Ins. on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Com.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reported
Volume: 2
Pages: 776–776

Head Matter:
Pa. Co. for Ins. on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Com.
A motion for re-argument of this case was granted, which was asked on the ground that a question of double taxation was not involved, as the Act of 1885 must be regarded as taking effect in 1886, and not in 1885, as assumed by the court, the Act having been passed June 30, and it would not be practicable to make an election as to taxes of that year when the election is required to be made on or before March 1st, of the current taxing year; but the case was settled before argument.
Jan. 7, 1889.
Motion for re-argument of writ of error No. 29, May T., 1887, from C. P. Dauphin Co., to review the action of the court below in entering a judgment in favor of the Commonwealth on an appeal from a settlement made by the auditor general and state treasurer, of taxes claimed by the Commonwealth. Reported above, page 694.
The petition for re-argument averred that the court had fallen into an error in supposing that the tax upon the capital stock settled under the Act, of 1879, and the tax upon the shareholders under the Act of 1885 were claimed for the same year, to-wit, the taxing year ending the first Monday of November, 1885, whereas the tax claimed against the shareholders was for the year ending the first Monday of November, 1886. The Act of 1885 must be regarded as taking effect for the tax year of 1886, as the Act was passed June 30, and it would not be practicable to make an election as to the taxes of that year when the election is required to be made on or before March 1st of the current taxing year.
W. S. Kirkpatrick, Attorney General, and John F. Sanderson, Deputy Attorney General, for motion,
relied upon the language of Clark, J., in Com. v. LehighValley R. R., 104 Pa. 89, and Com. v. Dunbar Furnace Co., 4 Pa. C. C. R., 349, as establishing the principle that a taxing statute which forms part of a system, and is a supplemental provision, should be given effect for the taxing year following the one current at the date of its enactment.
Frank P. Prichard and John G. Johnson, contra,
relied upon Mackellar v. Com., 10 Cent. 45, s. c. 10 Atl. 780, as deciding that the provision of the Act of 1885 “that the Act shall go into effect immediately, reserving and excepting unto the commonwealth the right to collect any taxes accrued under the laws repealed by this Act,” had the effect to compel an opportionment of the taxes due under the Act of 1879, from November 1884, to June 30, 1885, the date when the latter Act went into operation.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Re-argument ordered.
The above case was settled before reargument. See Report of Attorney General for 1889-90, page 20, and 137 Pa. 411.