22 Ind. 262 | Ind. | 1864
Complaint by the appellant against the appellees, to restrain the collection of .certain taxes assessed by the city against the company.
■ Demurrer to the complaint sustained. Exception and judgment for the defendants.
The complaint alleges, in substance, the following facts:
That' the city of Lafayette is a municipal corporation under the general law of the State for the incorporation of cities, and that Mdgely is the treasurer and collector thereof; that the city, through her officers and agents, illegally, &e., assumed to assess a city tax against the plaintiff, in this, by assessing the lots and parts of lots, &c., occupied by the railway, switches, side-tracks, cattle guards, and depot grounds, separately, and as such lots as they originally stood in the several additions to the city; also assessing the road by the mile so far as it runs through the corporate limits of the city. A schedule of the assessment is set out, from which it appears that the plaintiff was assessed for lots and grounds, as such, in the
If the taxes in question were assessed without authority of law, there can be no doubt that an injunction is a proper remedy to restrain the collection of them. Greencastle Township v. Black, 5 Ind. 557; The City, of Lafayette v. Jenners, 10 Ind. 70.
This leads to the inquiry what taxes may be levied by a . city incorporated under the general law, and in what manner are they to be levied. The 42d section of the act for the incorporation of cities, (1 G-. & H. 228,) answers the first branch of the inquiry. It provides as follows:
“ Sec. 42. The common council shall have, power to levy, and cause to be assessed and collected, in' each year, an ad valorem tax, of not more than 1 per centum, for general purposes, on all property subject to State and county taxation, within such city, and, also, a specific tax on omnibuses, or any carriages, and other vehicles used and run for passengers for hire, unless the same be licensed; and on each dog owned by any resident of such city, of not more than 2 dollai’s; and on each bitch owned by any resident of such city, of not more than 5 dollars; and, also, a poll tax, not exceeding 50 cents, on every male inhabitant, sane and not a pauper, of the age of twenty-one years, and not exceeding fifty years, residing therein.”
By this provision, it will be seen that a city may levy an
In what manner is ad valorem tax to be assessed? The 21st section of the same act provides for the making out of a list of persons and property liable to taxation, by the assessor and his assistants, and declares that “ such assessor and his assistants shall have the same powers, and be subject to the same provisions of the same law as the assessor of real and personal property for State and county purposes.”
Thus, it is clear that it was intended by the legislature that cities, in the collection of an ad valorem tax, should not only be confined to such property Avithin the city as is subject to State and county taxation, but that the same law should be observed in regard to the assessment thereof, as governs the assessment of property for State and county taxation. It was intended that cities, so far as an ad valorem tax is concerned, should be governed by the same system of assessment as that adopted for the time being for State and county taxation. And whatever changes may be made by the legislature in reference to the mode of assessment for State and county purposes, must also be adopted by the cities. The Ontario Bank v. Brumell et al., 10 Wend. 186.
This makes it necessary to inquire how taxes are to be assessed for State and county purposes, against railroad corporations. On the 22d of December, 1858, an act was approved, amending the 32d section of the act of 1852, to provide for the valuation and assessment of real and personal property. 1 G. & H. 77. The original section, it may be observed, was the foundation, chiefly, of the decision of this Court, in the case of The State v. Hamilton, 5 Ind. 310. The amendment is as follows:
On the day before the passage of the above amendment, the legislature passed an act to provide for the appraisement of real estate, and prescribing the duties of officers in relation thereto. Acts 1858, p. 4. The provisions of this act need not be here specially noticed. On the 4th'of March, 1859, the 6th section of the act above cited was amended. 1 G-. & H. 85. The amendment is as follows:
“Sec. 6. That it shall be the duty of the appraiser appointed in pursuance of this act, within ten days after their appointment, to proceed to list and appraise all the real estate in his county, subject by law to-taxation, as follows, to-wit:
“First. The said appraiser shall, on actual view, make a true valuation of all lands, together with the improvements and buildings thereon, or affixed thereto, at their full value in money, as he would appraise the same in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, taking into consideration the fertility and quality of the soil, the vicinity of the same to railroads, McAdamized roads, clay roads, turnpike roads, plank roads, State and county roads, cities, towns, villages, navigable rivers, water privileges on the same or in the vicinity of the same, the location of the route of any canal or canals, with any other local advantages of situation: Provided, That said appraiser shall also value all lands at their cash value, without taking into consideration any improvement that may be made thereon, and this valuation, as well as the valuation with improvements, shall be set down in proper columns provided for that purpose.
“Second. In-lots and out-lots in all towns,-cities and villa
In determining the construction which should be placed upon the foregoing amendments, a question arises whether the latter repeals the former. Wherein they are inconsistent, the former must be regarded as repealed by the latter. If by the latter statute the legislature had attempted to cover the whole subject matter provided for by the formei’, the former should perhaps be regarded as repealed. The President, &c., of the Peru, &c., R. R. Co. v. Bradshaw, 6 Ind. 146.
But there is one provision of the former statute that is in nowise inconsistent with the latter, nor is the subject matter of it covered by the provisions of the latter; and in respect to that provision the former law should, in our opinion, be regarded as unaffected by the latter. We have reference to the latter clause of the amendment of 1858, which provides that, “ all the lands owned or held in trust by any of the aforesaid companies, and not used by them in running or operating their said railroad, plank road,” &c., “ shall be assessed for taxation, and the taxes collected, in the counties where they severally lie, in the same manner and subject to the same rules and regulations that govern the assessment and collection of taxes on the lands of private persons.” It is necessary, it may be further observed, that this provision should he regarded as continued in force, in order to the perfection and harmony of the system of taxation contemplated by the legislation in question.
It will be seen at a glance that the system of taxation con
"We think the following proposition may be stated as legitimate deductions from the statutes in question:
1st. A railroad company is to be taxed for its “road” a3 an unit, embracing not only the track, rolling machinery, side tracks and switches, but all depots, machine shops, &c., in short, including all property in any way used by it in running or operating the road. But whether such track of the road, where it runs through different counties, is to be regarded as of equal value, or whether it may be appraised differently in different counties, is a question not involved in this ease and need not here be decided.
2d. Beal estate owned by a railroad company, or held in trust and not used in running or operating the road, is to be taxed in the same manner as the real estate of private individuals. This is expressly provided for by the amendment of 1858, and is in entire harmony with that .of 1859. It is also in harmony with the theory that every thing pertaining to the use and operation of the road is to be taxed unitedly as a road. Many railroad companies may yet have lands received on subscription to the capital stock of the company or otherwise, that have no connection whatever with the use and operation of the road, and there is no just reason why such lands should not be taxed as the lands of private persons. The appraisement of such real estate is amply provided for in the first part of the second clause of the amendment of 1859, and it is no where provided that such lands shall enter into the unit denominated the- “road.”
Erom this exposition of the statute it is clear that the city of Lafayette had no authority to assess the tax in question
The judgment below is reversed, with costs.