Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. MacKey

256 U.S. 531, 41 S. Ct. 582, 65 L. Ed. 1076, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1584
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 1, 1921
Docket211
StatusPublished
Cited by68 cases

This text of 256 U.S. 531 (Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. MacKey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. MacKey, 256 U.S. 531, 41 S. Ct. 582, 65 L. Ed. 1076, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1584 (1921).

Opinion

Me. Justice Beandeis

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company to have declared void a special assessment for street improvement made against part of its right of way and station grounds in the City of Holdenville, Oklahoma, and to enjoin the taking of any proceedings to enforce the same. The Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company, the lessor, was joined as plaintiff. The defendants are the county treasurer, the city, and holders of bonds issued to pay for the improvement. The street improved, called Oklahoma Avenue, rims parallel to the main tracks. The station grounds abut on the Avenue for a distance of 1641 feet, and the parcel assessed extends back from the Avenue 150 feet to the centre of the right of way. Over this street a large part of the traffic to and from the station necessarily passes. For between it and the main *535 tracks lie the passenger depot, the freight houses, the express office, the cotton platform, an oil warehouse, grain elevators, coal bins and the team tracks. The assessment is assailed as invalid on several grounds. The chief contention is that the property is immune from assessment by the State because that part of the railroad was an instrumentality of the Federal Government. The other grounds of attack are that in laying the. assessment the property was not sufficiently identified, and that the assessment of a railroad right of way and station grounds is not authorized by the law of the State. The. District .Court entered a decree for plaintiffs which was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals with directibns to dismiss the bill. 261 Fed. Rep. 342. The case comes here under § 241 of the Judicial Code. .

First. The claim of immunity from assessment rests upon these facts:' The right of way and station grounds are on land which had belonged to the Creek Nation before the town (now city) was established under direction of the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the original Creek Agreement. Act of March 1, 1901, c. 676, § 10, 31 Stat. 861, 864. The Rock Island acquired its interest on March 24, 1904, under a lease from the Choctaw/ Oklahoma & Gulf, for a period of 999 years, of all of its railroad property. The lessor company had in locating its railroad through Holdenville taken, besides the right of way 100 feet wide, an additional strip for station purposes 200 feet wide with a length of 3,000 feet; -having acquired the power so to do by succeeding to the powers and franchises of the Choctaw Coal.aiid Railway Company.' To that company Congress had in 1888 granted, the right to build a railroad in Indian Territory, with a branch line to coal mines* leased from the Choctaw Nation. 1

*536 The contention is that the railroad is an instrumentality through which the Government undertook to perform its obligation to develop coal lands belonging to th.e. Indians; and that, if the railroads’ interest in’ the right of way and station grounds could be subjected to a special assessment and possible sale thereunder apart from the railroad franchises, the congressional purpose might be obstructed. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292; see also Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522.

The mere fact that property is used, among others, by the United States as an instrument for éffecting its purpose does not relieve it from state taxation. The most that can be said here is that among the public served by this railroad are some mines oh land leased from the Choctaw Nation. The right of way and: station grounds in question, instead of being as. was perhaps originally contemplated by the Act of February 18, 1888, part of a branch to leased “coal veins,” havé become an integral *537 part of through lines of a great railroad system. 1 Holden-ville is on the main line of the Choctaw, Oklahoma and Gulf which extends from the west bank of the Mississippi River through Arkansas and Oklahoma to the Texas state line, a distance of nearly 650 miles. By the lease to the Rock Island, this railroad has become a part of the through lines of a much larger system. And even though it be granted that the Federal Government utilized the railroad as an instrument in working out its policy toward the Indians the tax upon the failroad property would be none the less valid. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 36; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Massachusetts, 125 U. S. 530, 546-548; Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. California, 162 U. S. 91, 125; Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264.

Second. Equally unfounded is' the contention that the assessment did not sufficiently identify the property, and was hence a denial of due process of law. The Oklahoma statute under which the assessment was madé (Comp. .Laws, 1909, § 724), provides that:

“If any portion of the property abutting upon such improvement shall not be platted into lots and blocks, the mayor and council shall include such property in proper quarter block districts for the purpose of appraisement and assessment/ as herein provided.” ’■

The railroad premises not having been platted, the Mayor and Council adopted a map of the city engineer, on which the right of way and station grounds were set forth in proper quarter block "districts. The premises *538 assessed .were those quarter blocks thereon designated as abutting on that portion of Oklahoma Avenue which was improved; and the designation was clear. Some time after the passage of the ordinance providing for the assessment this map was inadvertently removed from the city files, :sent to the purchasers of the bonds issued for the improvement, and not returned until after the lapse of a considerable time. But the railroad companies had full knowledge of the proceedings relating to the assessment and of the. commencement, the progress and the completion of the improvement. There is not even a suggestion that they were injured or misled by the temporary absence of the map from the city files. Such removal did not invalidate the assessment. Furthermore, mere insufficiency of description or other irregularity, in the proceeding would not entitle abutting landowners to the relief sought here.

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

Related

City of Jackson v. Rebuild America, Inc.
77 So. 3d 1105 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2011)
Beres v. States
64 Fed. Cl. 403 (Federal Claims, 2005)
Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp.
316 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Utah, 2004)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Mississippi Central Railroad
164 F. Supp. 2d 823 (N.D. Mississippi, 2001)
Mount Olivet Cemetery Association v. Salt Lake City
164 F.3d 480 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass'n v. Salt Lake City
164 F.3d 480 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones
411 U.S. 145 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Kansas City Southern Railroad v. City of Deridder
206 So. 2d 562 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1968)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1967
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad
353 U.S. 112 (Supreme Court, 1957)
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
230 F.2d 690 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)
Harper v. Oklahoma City
1953 OK 107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1953)
Warrior River Terminal Co. v. State
58 So. 2d 100 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
United States v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
89 F. Supp. 17 (E.D. Illinois, 1949)
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co.
336 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad v. Nice
45 A.2d 109 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 U.S. 531, 41 S. Ct. 582, 65 L. Ed. 1076, 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choctaw-oklahoma-gulf-railroad-v-mackey-scotus-1921.