City of Wichita Falls v. United States

62 Ct. Cl. 239, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6047, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1926 WL 2724
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 17, 1926
DocketNo. D-343
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 Ct. Cl. 239 (City of Wichita Falls v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Wichita Falls v. United States, 62 Ct. Cl. 239, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6047, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1926 WL 2724 (cc 1926).

Opinion

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts in this case are fully set out in the findings. This suit is one for the recovery of a transportation tax paid by the plaintiff, a municipal corporation, upon the transportation of sewer pipe to be used in completing a sewage system theretofore planned and established. The city of Wichita Falls, Tex., contracted in writing with C. B. Nichols, a private contractor, to do the necessary excavation, lay sewer piping therein, and back fill the trenches in accord with certain specifications previously adopted by the city in establishing and constructing a complete sanitary sewage system for the same. The determining factor in the contract and the single stipulation herein involved was the one wherein the city expressly covenants to supply at its ex[242]*242pense all the sewer piping necessary for the work. Nichols, the contractor, was by the contract appointed the city’s agent for the express purpose of purchasing all the piping wanted. In pursuance of this appointment the contractor negotiated and finally consummated an agreement of purchase with the San Antonio Sewer Pipe Works, of San Antonio, Tex., covering the sewer pipe needed for the enterprise. The purchase price agreed upon varied in proportion to the sizes of pipe required, the seller stipulating a freight allowance to the purchaser at the rates of freight prevailing August 6, 1920, the purchaser “to pay war tax on freight.” The piping was shipped by rail from San Antonio to Wichita Falls. The railroad company, in addition to freight charges, exacted of the consignee, under section 500 (a) of the revenue act of 1918, 3 per cent of the total transportation charges, amounting in all to $1,468.35, and it is for this amount recovery is sought.

Section 500 (a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1101-1103, provides in terms as follows:

“ That from and after April 1, 1919, there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid, in lieu of the taxes imposed by section 500 of the Eevenue Act of 1917—
“(a) A tax equivalent to 3 per centum of the amount paid for the transportation on or after such date, by rail or water or by any form of mechanical motor power when in competition with carriers by rail or water, of property by freight transported from one point in the United States to another; and a like tax on the amount paid for such transportation within the United States of property transported from a point without the United States to a point within the United States.”

The plaintiff insists that it is immune from taxation in this particular instance because in establishing and constructing a sanitary sewer, system for the municipality it was exercising a governmental function, and that the means adopted by an instrumentality of a State in carrying forward its governmental privileges are under the Constitution exempt from taxation. In other words, under the Constitution the Federal Government may not tax a municipal corporation nor the means employed by it in carrying into effect its powers.

[243]*243The general proposition advocated by the plaintiff was long since established. The rule of law applicable is quite too familiar to require more, than statement. The difficulty in the instant case is not one of principle but of application. The courts recognize, and have repeatedly stated, that a municipal corporate body acts in a dual capacity. Doubtless in legislating to establish and pay for a general sewer system and adopting the general plans and method to be followed it acts in a public capacity. Apparently, however, when it engages in the actual work of construction, the letting of contracts for work, and the purchase of materials to bring into being the system contemplated by former legislation, the city acts in a ministerial and not a public capacity. In the latter instance it is carrying forward the mandate of the legislative body, and this it may do by employing its own agencies; or, as in this instance, letting out the work to be done to a private contractor. Obviously there is nothing of a public character in the mere manual labor and purchase of materials involved in building a sewer. The Supreme Court, in the case of Johnston v. District of Columbia, 118 U. S. 19, 20, states the law applicable here with manifest preciseness. The court said:

“The duties of the municipal authorities in adopting a general plan of drainage, and determining when and where sewers shall be built, of what size and at what level, are of a quasi judicial nature, involving the exercise of deliberate judgment and large discretion, and depending upon considerations affecting the public health and general convenience throughout an extensive territory; and the exercise of such judgment and discretion, in the selection and adoption of the general plan or system of drainage, is not subject to revision by a court or jury in a private action for not sufficiently draining a particular lot of land. But the construction and repair of sewers, according to the general plan so adopted, are simply ministerial duties; and for any negligence in so constructing a sewer, or keeping it in repair, the municipality which has constructed and owns the sewer may be sued by a person whose property is thereby injured.”

The physical construction of a public sewer system embraces an ordinary commercial enterprise. The city, in its efforts to procure at the lowest price the work and -material indispensable to go forward, is on the same plane as private [244]*244individuals in a like situation. When so engaged the municipality is not exercising governmental powers; on the contrary, as said by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 172:

“ It is no part of the essential governmental functions of a State to provide means of transportation, supply artificial light, water, and the like. These objects are often accomplished through the medium of private corporations, and, though the public may derive a benefit from such operations, the companies carrying on such enterprises are, nevertheless, private companies, whose business is prosecuted for private emolument and advantage. For the purpose of taxation they stand upon the same footing as other private corporations upon which special franchises have been conferred.
“ The true distinction is between the attempted taxation of those operations of the States essential to the execution of its governmental functions, and which the State can only do itself, and those activities which are of a private character. The former the United States may not interfere with by taxing the agencies of the State in carrying out its purposes ; the latter, although regulated by the State and exercising delegated authority, such as the right of eminent domain, are not removed from the field of legitimate Federal taxation.” Vilas v. City of Manila, 220 U. S. 345, 356; Metcalf v. Mitchell, 299 Fed. 812.

The Commissioner of Internal Eevenue has ruled that under paragraph (h) of section 500 a municipal corporation is exempt from transportation taxes when the conditions of the statute have been complied with. The language of paragraph (h) is comprehensive and the intent of Congress clear.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Ct. Cl. 239, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6047, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1926 WL 2724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-wichita-falls-v-united-states-cc-1926.