202 P. 198 | Mont. | 1921
prepared the opinion for the court.
Great Northern Kailway Company instituted two actions against Flathead county and J. W. Walker, county treasurer, to recover taxes paid under protest, which were assessed by the county assessor against certain snowsheds over its tracks
Plaintiff contends that the snowsheds are part and parcel of the roadbed and as such cannot be subject to local county assessment, but that they must .be assessed by the state board of equalization. With respect to the cooking utensils, plaintiff holds that they are included in the term “rolling stock” and are subject to assessment" in the -same manner by the state board. Plaintiff also avers that, since both the roadbed and rolling stock had already been assessed by the state board and the taxes paid, the assessment and taxes sought thereon by the county assessor double the taxes on the same property. The defendants argue that the snowsheds are not included in the word “roadbed,” but are to be considered as structures erected on the right of way and therefore subject to local assessment, and that cooking utensils on the boarding-cars come under the head of property properly assessable by the county assessor.
The issues were tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was had for the plaintiff in both eases. Defendants appeal from the judgments.
The record shows that the Great Northern Railway on its
Article XII, section 16, of the state Constitution, reads, in part: “All property shall be assessed in the manner prescribed by law except as is otherwise provided in the Constitution. The franchise, roadway, roadbed, • rails and rolling stock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this state shall be assessed by the state board of equalization. ’ ’ This method of assessment is also contained in section 2508, Revised Codes. Under subdivision 7 of section 2511, Revised Codes, the county assessor is directed to require a statement under oath of “all depots, * # * stations, buildings and other structures erected on the space covered by the right of way and all other property owned by any person, corporation or association of persons owning or operating any railroad within the county,” The taxing of the snowsheds, therefore,
The Great Northern Railway operates in many counties of the state of Montana, and, if these snowsheds are included in the meaning of the word “roadbed,” they are clearly to be subject to assessment and taxation under the exception to the rule, set forth in the Constitution. Fortunately, the word “roadbed” has been defined by this court as follows: “The roadbed is that part of the right of way especially prepared for the emplacement of ties, rails and other necessary superstructures, and to which the ties, rails, and other necessary superstructures are affixed.” (Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Murray, 55 Mont. 162, 174 Pac. 704, 705.) Under this definition, it is any and all parts of the right of way especially prepared, under the tracks, over the tracks, and coterminous with the limits of the right of way, if required for the emplacement of necessary structures forming an integral part of the continuous railroad property.
The fact that the two outer walls of the sheds necessarily are on the outside of and adjacent to the very ground upon which the ties are laid cannot by the most far-fetched subtleties of reason be considered as placing them outside of the roadbed if that ground is a part of the right of way especially prepared, not only for rails and ties, but for the emplacement of a necessary structure and a superstructure is affixed to it. “Structures affixed to realty are part of the realty to which they are affixed.” (Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Murray, supra; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dixson, 55 Mont. 171, 174 Pac. 706.)
Unquestionably the snowsheds are part of the roadbed, and under Article XII, section 16, of the Montana Constitution, are not assessable by the county assessor, but must be assessed by the state board of equalization.
Defendants have failed to pursue their contention in
This situation, under too many decisions of this court to
“Rolling stock” is defined in 34 Cyc. 815 to be “movable property belonging to a railroad company.” From the case of Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Webber, 96 Ill. 443, and cited by plaintiff, is the following: “The rolling stock of a railroad company embraces the movable property belonging to the corporation by which is plainly meant such property as in its ordinary use is taken from one part of the line to another, such as cars, locomotives, and their attachments and usual accompaniments. ’ ’
Cooking utensils are a necessary and usual accompaniment of the boarding-car and as such a part of the rolling stock, and being thus included, are subject to no assessment save that by the state board of equalization.
For the reasons herein stated, we recommend that the judgments appealed from be affirmed.
Per Curiam : For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgments appealed from are affirmed.
'Affirmed.