40 Ga. 646 | Ga. | 1869
Lead Opinion
The Court in this case is unanimous in its judgment in reversing the judgment of the Court below, but for different reasons. I shall state the grounds upon which my own judgment is based. The charters of the respective railroad companies authorise them “to purchase and hold all real' estate that may be necessary and proper for the purpose of laying, building and sustaining said railroads, and that the said railroads and the appurtenances of the same, shall not be subject to be taxed higher 'than one-half of one per cent, upon their annual nett income, and no municipal or other corporation shall have power to tax the stock of said companies, but may tax any property real and personal of said companies within the jurisdiction of said corporation, in the ratio of taxation of like property.” What is the “stock” of said railroad companies ? Bouvier defines stock to be, “ the capital of corporations; this is usually divided into shares of a definite value, as one hundred dollars, fifty dollars, per share.” 2d Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 531. The stock of these companies then consists of their capital invested in such property as may be necessary and proper for conducting the business for which they were chartered. All the property of these companies that is necessary and proper, for the purpose of laying, building and sustaining their respective-railroads, constitutes a part of the capital stock of said companies, and is not liable to be taxed in any other manner than is specified in their respective charters. Any other property owned by said companies, which is not necessary and
The judgment of this Court, upon the statement of facts contained in the record, is that the property of the respective companies specified therein, is not liable to be taxed by the county of Bibb, except lot number two, in block seventy-eight, and that the Court below erred in holding and deciding that lot number two, in block seventy-eight, was exempt from taxation by the couniy.
Let the judgment of £he Court below be reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurred as follows :
1. By the laws of Georgia, as they now exist, no county tax can be collected upon any property not taxed by the State.
2. When the State, in the grant of a charter to a railroad company, provided that the said railroad and its appurtenances should not be taxed higher than one-half of one per cent, upon its nett income, the “railroad and appurtenances” mentioned, fairly included not only the road and roadbed, but. stations, tanks, wood-sheds, depots, engine houses, shops for.
3. In the charter of the Central Railroad, the State has ■expressly reserved the right to authorize municipal and other corporations (which includes counties) to tax for local purposes the property of said company, of any character, within the locality, at the same rates as taxes are assessed upon the property of natural persons; but though such a right is reserved to the State, it has not by any law been as yet conferred on the eounties. ,
3. Real estate purchased by a railroad company, to be used as a locality on which to erect depots, and over which to lay a track, in pursuance of a contemplated change of depot site, does not become “property appurtenant,” until the change is actually made and the former site abandoned.
4. When there is property of a railroad company in a .county, subject to State and county tax, which is not returned to the proper tax receiver, it is the right and duty of the Ordinary to cause the collector to have the tax, both State and county assessed and collected.
Concurrence Opinion
concurred as follows:
The charter of the Central Railroad and Banking Company contains this provision :
“That the said, railroad and the appurtenances of the same, shall not be subject to be taxed higher than one-half of one per centum upon its annual nett income, and no municipal or other corporation shall have power to tax the stock of said company, but may tax any property, real or personal, of said company, within the jurisdiction of said corporation, in the ratio of taxation of like property.”
It is insisted that this is a contract between the State and the company, which forever exempts the company from a higher tax than one-half of one per centum on its nett in- • come, and that they are entitled to this perpetual exemption from taxation, no matter what may be the exigencies of the
• While the State has relinquished her right of taxation over the road and its appurtenances, the company has expressly agreed, on its part, that a municipal or other corporation may tax any property, real or personal, of said company, within its jurisdiction, in the ratio of taxation of like property. .
Now, it is argued- that this provision only subjects to municipal taxation such property as the company may have purchased in payment of debts, and -the like, which are not appurtenant to the road, and that this view is strengthened by the inhibition to tax the stock of the company, which it is insisted includes the road and its appurtenances.
But if this view be correct, what use was there for the provision that a municipal or other corporation may tax any property, real or personal, of said company ? The State'has not relinquished her power to'tax any property the company may own, except the road and its appurtenances. Property purchased by the company in payment of a debt, not connected with the road, and not appurtenant to the road, being taxable by the State as other property, there could have been no doubt about the power of the State to authorize municipal corporations, also, to tax it, and in that view of the case the provision in the charter, now under consideration, would have been surplusage and altogether useless.
It is very evident that this langnage was intended, when inserted in the contract, to mean something.. And I think it quite as evident that it. does mean, that while the -State may not tax the road and its appurtenances more than one-half of one per centum on its nett incomes, the municipal corporations and county corporations, through which it runs, may tax any of its property, real or personal, in the ratio of taxation imposed'on any other like property, that is, on any other real or personal property within the city or cóunty, and subject to taxation by it.
Treating the charter as a contract, and admitting, for the
But while I have no doubt of the power of the Legislature ■to authoi'ise the counties, and other municipal corporations through which the road rfins, to impose such a tax, the question arises in this case, whether that power has been exercised as to any part of the property of the company not subject to a State tax. And I am satisfied, after looking into the case carefully, that the Legislature has not conferred any such authority on the county of Bibb, or any other county. The county is only authorised to levy a per cent, on the State tax. Now, as the State is not authorised to levy a tax on the road or its appurtenances in Bibb county, and none such has been levied, there is no State tax upon which the county can assess a per cent. If the .Legislature should, at'any time, confer the authority upon the county to assess a tax upon the property of the company within its limits, it will be necessary to provide some mode of assessing and collecting it other than the present mode of levying a per cent, upon the State tax.
But I am satisfied that all property purchased in the county of Bibb, for the purpose of locating new depots, or for any other purpose, is subject to both State and county tax, till actually occupied by the road for such purpose. So soon as the new depot buildings are complete, and are occupied by the road as such, they will then be part of the appur
While we should not give to,o narrow a construction to the word “appurtenances,” it should receive a. reasonable construction. The term embraces all the necessary depots, shops, and other buildings of the company, which are proper for the successful management of the road, together with such quantity of land as may be covered by or actually necessary for such use, but no more.
The remarks made in reference to the Central Railroad do not apply to such other roads as have a clause* in the charter exempting tbein from taxation beyond one half of one per cent, upon their nett incomes, without any such provision as is contained in the charter of the' Central Railroad, reserving the right of taxation to municipal or other corporations — as the Georgia and Southwestern Roads, for instance —whose charters contain no such provision in favor of county or city taxation. . (
