Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Bosworth

185 S.W. 125, 169 Ky. 824, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 770
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMay 3, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 185 S.W. 125 (Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Bosworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Bosworth, 185 S.W. 125, 169 Ky. 824, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 770 (Ky. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hurt.

Reversing.

On July 2nd, 1913, the Louisville Gas Company and the Kentucky Heating Company, which were two corporations organized under the laws of Kentucky prior to the adoption of the present constitution, and the Louisville Lighting Company, a corporation organized under the laws of this state since the adoption of the present constitution, merged or consolidated and created the appellant, Louisville Gas & Electric Company, which is a corporation possesing the power to sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with. On the day of its organization the directors of the three corporations, by whose consolidation it was- created, signed, acknowledged and delivered an agreement in writing, wherein the terms and conditions of the consolidation were set out, the mode of carrying it into effect and such other stipulations as were necessary to be contained therein, as provided by law, as well as the manner of converting shares of the old' corporations into shares of the appellant. The articles of agreement of consolidation were acknowledged and lodged for record in the office of the clerk of the Jefferson county court, in which county the chief office of appellant was situated, and on July 2nd, 1913, a duly certified copy [826]*826of the articles was lodged for record in the office of the Secretary of State. The Louisville Gas Company and the Kentucky Heating Company, being corporations organized and existing prior to the time of the enactment of section 4225, of Kentucky Statutes, which levies an organization tax upon corporations which have been created since its enactment, had never paid an organization tax, but the Louisville Lighting Company, having been created since the enactment of the statute, section 4225, supra, had paid the organization tax at the time of its creation. When the three corporations merged and created the appellant corporation, the capital stock of appellant was fixed at $11,000,000.00, being $2,150,000.00 in excess of the aggregate capital stock of the three constituent corporations. The appellant holding that it was not required to pay an organization tax, as provided by Section 4225, supra, upon the capital stock of the Louisville Gas Company and the Kentucky Heating Company, nor upon the capital stock of the Louisville Lighting Company, which went to create the appellant corporation, tendered and offered to pay into the treasury of the state the organization tax-of one-tenth of one per centum upon the authorized capital stock of appellant, which was in excess of the aggregate capital stock of the three constituent corporations, but the treasurer refused to receive such sum or any sum less than one-tenth of one per centum upon the amount of the capital stock of appellant, which was in excess of the aggregate capital stock of the three constituent corporations, but, also, one-tenth of one per centum upon the amount of the capital stock of the two corporations, above named, which were organized and in existence before the adoption of the present constitution. The appellant was unable to file a statement of the payment of its organization tax with the Secretary of State, who refused to file or record the articles of consolidation until such a statement was filed with him, and was unable to have or exercise any corporate powers or be deemed to be organized until the tax should be paid. Sections 542, 4225, 556, Kentucky Statutes. Thereupon, under protest, the appellant paid the entire amount of the taxes demanded. Within two years thereafter it made a demand upon the Auditor of Public Accounts to draw his warrant upon the Treasurer for the amount of the organization taxes paid by it upon the capital stock of the Louisville Gas Company and the Kentucky Heating Com[827]*827pauy, which went into the consolidation and which formed a part of the capital stock of the appellant. This demand being refused, it instituted this action for a writ of mandamus to require the Auditor of Public Accounts to draw his warrant in its favor for the sum demanded. The petition set out in substance the facts above stated, and, also, alleged that the Kentucky Heating Company and the Louisville Gas Company had, since the adoption of the present constitution, each accepted of its provisions by a resolution by its board of directors, and attested copies of the resolution had been filed in the office of the Secretary of State. A general demurrer was sustained to the petition of appellant and it was dismissed. From this judgment the appellant has appealed.

Three questions presented for determination upon this appeal are:

First: Was the money paid by appellant as an organization tax upon that part of the capital stock of the appellant corporation, which was composed of the stock of the Louisville Gas Company and the Kentucky Heating Company, “when no such taxes were- in fact due?”

Second: If paid under the circumstances alleged, is appellant entitled to require the Auditor to draw his warrant for it upon the Treasurer ?

Third: Is the proceeding a suit against the State, which can not be instituted nor maintained without the consent of the State?

Section 4225, Kentucky Statutes, which imposed the corporation tax, is not retroactive in its operation, and does not impose the organization tax upon any corporation, except such as are organized after that statute went into effect, or such corporations, although organized before the statute went into effect, as so changed their scope, rights and powers in such a substantial way as amounts to a radical or material change from its original plans and purposes, as to in fact create a new corporation. Com. v. Licking Valley Bldg. Association, 118 Ky. 791; Com. v. Southern Pacific Co., 164 Ky. 818; Bruner v. Louisville Packing Co., 144 Ky. 471; Ohio Valley Co. v. Bruner, 148 Ky. 358; Crecelius v. Carrollton S. & L. Association, 167 Ky. 817. An old corporation, by its acceptance of the present constitution, does not thereby render itself liable for the organization tax. Crecelius v. Carrollton S. & L. Association, supra. Section 4225, supra, provides, that if a corporation created before its enactment, [828]*828thereafter increases its capital stock, the organization tax is only collectible upon the stock of which the increase consists. Sections 555 and 556, Kentucky Statutes, regulate the manner in which corporations may consolidate, and the rights and powers of the new corporation. There are no other statutory provisions relating to the subject. Among the provisions of section 556, supra, is the following:

“Provided, that no consolidated company formed under this chapter or the laws of this State shall be required to pay any organization tax, except that, if in the consolidation, the capital stock of the consolidated company be increased, or be thereafter increased to an amount exceeding the aggregate capital stock of the constituent companies at the time of the consolidation, then in that event the consolidated company shall not have or exercise any corporate powérs until it shall have paid into the state treasury one-tenth of one per centum upon the amount of said increase, and upon payment shall have filed a statement thereof with the Secretary of State. * * *”

The above provision evidently refers to the consolidation of corporations, who have their homes in the state of Kentucky, as the remainder of the section quoted from bears upon the consolidation of a home corporation with one organized under the laws of another state.

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

Related

Hamblen Ex Rel. Byars v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services
322 S.W.3d 511 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2010)
Kentucky State Park Commission v. Wilder
76 S.W.2d 4 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Coleman, Auditor v. Inland Gas Corporation
21 S.W.2d 1030 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1929)
Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
255 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court, 1921)
Craig v. Security Producing & Refining Co.
225 S.W. 729 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
J. & A. Freiberg Co. v. Dawson
274 F. 420 (W.D. Kentucky, 1920)
Greene v. Taylor, Jr. & Sons
212 S.W. 925 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)
Greene v. Federal Coal Co.
212 S.W. 580 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 S.W. 125, 169 Ky. 824, 1916 Ky. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-gas-electric-co-v-bosworth-kyctapp-1916.