Home/E.D. Kentucky/Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis

Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis

12 F.2d 802, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1489
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky
DecidedNovember 11, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 F.2d 802 (Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 12 F.2d 802, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1489 (E.D. Ky. 1925).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The injunction sought is to enjoin the state tax commission from certifying for the year 1923 any greater assessment of plaintiff’s franchise than $115,-875.50. The commission tentatively assessed that franchise at $516,420, and plaintiff claims that the assessment should not be greater than $115,875.50. The plaintiff is an Indiana corporation and citizen, and all the defendants .are Kentucky citizens. The railroad which plaintiff operates is located in the states of Indiana and Illinois and slightly in Kentucky. The entire number of miles operated by it is 649.01. The portion which it operates in Kentucky is, first, over the track of the Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Company, a distance of 1.54 miles, and then over the track of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, a further distance of .5.35 miles, making a total mileage of 6.89 miles in Kentucky. It operates its freight trains only over the former track. Its passenger trains if operates over both tracks; i. e., the entire mileage in Kentucky.

The franchise of plaintiff, assessable under the laws of Kentucky, is its intangible property therein. The value thereof was ascertained in the usual way; i. e,, by first ascertaining and determining the value of its entire assets, then apportioning to Kentucky the same proportion of such value which its mileage in Kentucky bears to the entire mileage; and, finally, deducting from such portion thereof the value of its tangible property in Kentucky. It ascertained the value of the entire assets by the capitalization method. It determined the value thereof to be sum of which the average of the net income for 1923 and 1922 was 7 per cent.

The plaintiff complains of the tentative assessment in three particulars:

1. The commission included in the net income, so capitalized, income from property whose situs was outside of Kentucky, which plaintiff, in its report to the commission, characterized as “nonoperating income.” It is thus listed in that report:

[804]*804

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

Related

Pleasant v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
66 F.2d 842 (Tenth Circuit, 1933)
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works
3 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. West Virginia, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 F.2d 802, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-i-l-ry-co-v-lewis-kyed-1925.