Board of Supervisors v. Commonwealth ex rel. City of Petersburg

81 S.E. 112, 116 Va. 311, 1914 Va. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedMarch 19, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 112 (Board of Supervisors v. Commonwealth ex rel. City of Petersburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Supervisors v. Commonwealth ex rel. City of Petersburg, 81 S.E. 112, 116 Va. 311, 1914 Va. LEXIS 34 (Va. 1914).

Opinion

Buchanan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The validity of an act approved March 12, 1912, (Acts 1912, ch. 139, pp. 274-5), entitled “An act in relation to the assessment for local taxation of the rolling stock of railroad corporations,” is involved in this case. Objection was made to it before the State Corporation Commission, from which this appeal comes, upon several grounds, among them that the act is meaningless because of the omission of certain words which were intended to be inserted in it; that it was repealed by the amendment and re-enactment of section 27 of the revenue law, approved March 13, 1912, (Acts 1912, ch. 214, pp. 490-494), and that its provisions are in violation of sections 50 and 168 of the State Constitution.

The written and oral arguments here have been largely, indeed almost éntirely, devoted to the discussion of the constitutionality of the act of March 12, 1912.

Whenever the question of the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly is distinctly presented and necessary to the decision of the particular case, it is the duty of the court to determine that question; but it is the well settled doctrine that if the case before the court can be determined upon other grounds, the court will not enter upon the consideration of whether or not the action of the legislature is constitutional, for as no questions can be brought before a judicial tribunal of greater delicacy than those which involve the constitutionality of a legislative act, it is the part of wisdom and a just respect for the legislature not to question the constitutionality of its action if the case may be determined on other points. Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. 448-9, 678-9; Grifin v. Cun[313]*313ningham, 20 Gratt. (61 Va.) 31, 33-4; Gayle & Eason v. Com’th, 115 Va. 958, 80 S. E. 741; Cooley’s Const. Lim. (6th ed.), p. 196.

Objections to the validity of said act other than that its provisions violate the Constitution of the State will, therefore, be first considered.

Conceding for the purposes of this case that the words necessary to give the statute the meaning contended for by the appellants may be read into the act of March 12, 1912, the next question to be considered is whether or not it has been repealed by the amendment and re-enactment of section 27 of the revenue law. It is conceded that the former act has not been expressly repealed, but the contention is that the two acts are inconsistent with and repugnant to each other—that there is such conflict between them that they cannot stand together—and, therefore, the former is impliedly repealed by the latter act.

The well settled rule is that the law does not favor a repeal by implication, unless the repugnance be quite plain, and then only to the extent of such repugnancy. Fox’s Admr. v. Com’th. 16 Gratt. (57 Va.) 1, 8-12; Vansant, Kitchen & Co. v. Com’th, 108 Va. 137-8, 60 S. E. 753, and authorities cited.

By section 176 of the Constitution, the State Corporation Commission is required annually to ascertain and assess “the value of the roadbed, and other real estate, rolling stock, and all other personal property whatsoever (except its franchises and the non-taxable shares of stock issued by other corporations) in the State of each railway corporation, whatever its motive power, now or hereafter liable for taxation upon such property . and such property shall be taxed for State, county, city, town and district purposes in the same manner as authorized by said law at such rates of taxation as may be [314]*314imposed by them, respectively, from time to time upon tbe real estate and personal property of natural persons. ’ ’

By tbe act of March 12, 1912, it is provided, that such of the rolling stock of the various railroad corporations doing business in Virginia, except electric railway companies, as is taxable in this State, shall not be assessed for the purpose of local taxation by the counties, cities, towns and school districts at the principal office or offices of the respective corporations, but for the purpose of deriving taxes from the rolling stock for the various counties, cities, towns and school districts in and through which the said railroad companies run, as ascertained and assessed for the purpose of State taxation, (shall be levied) a tax based on the rate of taxation imposed on the property of natural persons for local purposes by the county, city, town or school district in which the principal office of any such railroad corporation is located in this State, which taxes so levied shall be distributed among the various counties, cities, towns and school districts in this State in and through which said railroad companies respectively operate and pass in the following manner and proportion: to the counties, cities or towns in which the principal offices of such companies are respectively located, twenty-five per cent, of the gross amount of taxes so levied on the rolling stock of such companies, respectively, and the remaining seventy-five per centum of such taxes shall be divided and distributed among all the several counties, cities, towns and school districts in this State in or through which such railroads or any part thereof are located or pass, including the counties, cities and towns in which said principal offices are located in the ratio and proportion that the total assessed value of the right of way, roadbed and track and all other property of such railroad companies, respect[315]*315ively, (except rolling stock) located in any such county, city, town or school district, ascertained and assessed for the purpose of State taxation, bears to the aggregate value of all such t property of such companies, respectively,, (except rolling stock) in tks State as ascertained and assessed for the purpose of State taxation.

By the act approved March 13, 1912, amending section 27 of the revenue law, it is provided, among other things, that every railway corporation of the State not exempt from taxation and every railway corporation doing business in this State, shall report annually before a day named to the State Corporation Commission all of its real and personal property of every description, showing particularly in what county or corporation the principal office or agency of such corporation is located in this State, and also showing what part of such property is located in each school district of such county and classifying the same under the following heads:

First. Roadway and track;
Second. Depot grounds, lots, station building and fixtures and machine shops;
Third. Real estate not included in other classes;
Fourth. Rolling stock of all kinds, describing it;
Fifth. Stores;
Sixth. Telegraph lines;
Seventh and Eighth. Stocks, bonds and other evidences of debt held by such railway company in various ways named;
Ninth. And all other personal property of such railway company not enumerated above and which would be taxable under the act if the same belonged to an individual.

' It was further provided that such railway company shall report its gross transportation receipts for the preceding year; and that the State Corporation Commission [316]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Hampton v. Williamson
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2023
Van Tran v. Gwinn
554 S.E.2d 63 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2001)
Klarfeld v. Salsbury
355 S.E.2d 319 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1987)
H. M. Gleason & Co. v. International Harvester Co.
88 S.E.2d 904 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
Watkins v. Ford
96 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.E. 112, 116 Va. 311, 1914 Va. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-supervisors-v-commonwealth-ex-rel-city-of-petersburg-va-1914.