Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

469

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Sweetland v. Ill., etc., Telegraph Co., 27 Iowa, 434...

0.

Swoboda . Ward, 4 Mich. 420....
Tabor v. Mo. Valley R. R. Co., 46
Mo. 355....
Talbot v. Kennedy, 76 Ind. 282...
Taylor . R. R. Co., 48 N. H. 304.
Tennessee v. Davies, 100 U. S. 345.
Thomas . R. R. Co., 101 U. S. 80.
Thorpe v. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 402. 373
Todd .Old ColonyR.R.,3 Allen,18. 416
Toledo, etc., Co. v. Goddard, 25
Ind. 185

139

259

261

v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 431.. 52 Watkins v. Great Western R. R., 37 L. T. (N. S.) 193... Watson v. Hopkins, 27 Tex. 637... 729 Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344. 10 Weiss v. City of Madison, 75 Ind. 241...

489

74

49

572

221 Wells v. B. C. R., etc., R. R. Co., 2 Am.& Eng. R. R. Cases, 243... 530 Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 279.. 52 Westerfelt v. Gregg, 12 N. Y. 209.. 41 Weston v. Charlestown, 2 Peters, 449..

10

252

312

273

179

232

v. Grabel, 88 Ill. 441..
. Shuckman, 50 Ind. 42....
Towanda Coal Co. v. Heenan, 86
Pa. 418..

Towanda R. R. Co. v. Munger, 5
Den. 267.

Townley v. Railway, 4 Am. & Eng.
R. R. Cases, 562..
473
Trustees v. Peaslee, 15 N. H. 317.. 558
Steamboat v. King, 16 How.... 474
Tuft . Warman, 5 C. B. N. S. 584. 412
United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat,
392..

204

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. R. Co.

(U. S. Circuit Court, District of California.)

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in declaring that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the "equal protection of the laws," imposes a limitation upon the exercise of all the powers of the State, which can touch the individual or his property, including among them that of taxation.

The "equal protection of the laws" to any one implies not only that he has a right to resort, on the same terms with others, to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts, but also that he is exempt from any greater burdens or charges than such as are equally imposed upon all others under like circumstances. This equal protection forbids unequal exactions of any kind, and among them that of unequal taxation.

Uniformity in taxation requires uniformity in the mode of assessment as well as in the rate of percentage charged.

By the thirteenth article of the Constitution of California, "a mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other obligation by which a debt is secured," is treated, for the purposes of assessment and taxation, as an interest in the property affected thereby, and, "except as to railroad and other quasi public corporations," the value of the property affected, less the value of the security, is to be assessed and taxed to its owner, and the value of the security is to be assessed and taxed to its holder.-(Sec. 4.) But by the same article "the franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-stock of all railroads operated in more than one county" are to be assessed at their actual value, and apportioned to the counties, cities, and districts in which the roads are located, in proportion to the number of miles of railway laid therein, no deduction from this value being allowed for any mortgages on the property: Held, That in the different modes thus prescribed of assessing the value of the property of natural persons and the property of railroad corporations as the basis of taxation, there is a departure from the rule of equality and uniformity.

Private corporations are persons, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are entitled, so far as their property is concerned, to the equal protection of the laws.

Neither the Constitution nor the laws of California relating to the assessment of railroads operated in more than one county provide for notice to the owner or an opportunity for him to be heard at any stage of the proceeding. In this respect both conflict with the guarantee that no one shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.

Whatever the character of the proceeding, by which one is deprived of his property, whether judicial or administrative; and whether it takes the prop

erty directly, or creates a charge or liability which may be the basis of taking it, the law directing the proceeding must provide for some kind of notice, and offer to the owner an opportunity to be heard, or the procceding will want the essential ingredient of due process of law.

The provisions of Article XIII. of the Constitution of California, treating of revenue and taxation, are not conditions upon the continued existence of railroad corporations.

The State possesses no power to withdraw corporations from the guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Whatever property a corporation lawfully acquires is held under the same guarantees which protect the property of natural persons from spoliation.

Under the reserved power to amend, alter, or repeal the laws under which private corporations are formed, the State cannot exercise any control over the property of a corporation, except such as may be exercised through control over its franchise, and over like property of natural persons engaged in similar business. It cannot divest property or rights which have become vested.

The Constitution of California (Sec. 15, Art IV.) provides that "on the final passage of all bills they shall be read at length and the votes shall be by yeas and nays upon each bill separately, and shall be entered on the journal, and no bill shall become a law without the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house." Under this provision the court, to inform itself, will look to the journals of the Legislature, and if it appear therefrom that the bill did not pass by the constitutional majority, then it will not be regarded as a law.-SAWYER, J.

The journals of the Legislature show that the Act of March 14th, 1881, mentioned in the opinion, never became a law.-Sawyer, J.

THIS was an action commenced by the County of San Mateo, of California, under the provisions of an Act of the State of 1880 (Statutes of 1880, page 136), for the recovery of State and county taxes, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff for the fiscal year 1881-'82. The complaint is in the form prescribed by the statute. The amended answer contains a general denial of every allegation of the complaint, and sets up special matters as a defence. With this general denial the Court does not deal; it deals only with the special matters pleaded, it having been agreed by counsel that if they constitute a defence to the action judgment final shall be entered for the defendant, otherwise for the plaintiff.

The material averments of the answer in this respect are, that the defendant is a corporation existing under the laws of the United States, and of the State of California, having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco; that it was organized in the year 1878 under an Act of the Legislature of the State, entitled "An act to provide for the incorporation of railroad companies, the management of the affairs thereof, and other matters relating thereto," approved May 30th, 1861; that the term of its existence was to be fifty years from the date of its organization; that it is still in existence under said laws, except in so far as its existence and character are affected by the Federal enactments referred to and made part of the answer; that many of its stock

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »