Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Weber

96 Ill. 443, 1880 Ill. LEXIS 57
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided May 14, 1880·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Where a corporation is formed under our laws by consolidation of other corporations, (which are merged into the new corporation thus formed,) and where one of the constituent companies was incorporated under the laws of this State, the new corporation thus formed is to be considered as one of the “ companies incorporated under the laws of this State,” within the terms and meaning of the last clause of the first section of the Revenue act of March 30, 1872; and the capital stock (located or used in this State) of such corporation is subject to be assessed and taxed as such. There can be no distinction in principle between the status of such corporation and that of a corporation operating its business in two adjoining States, having a charter for such purpose from each of such States, and that has been decided to be the law applicable to the latter class of companies. Quincy Bridge Co. v. County of Adams, 88 Ill. 615.

The corporation in the case at bar owns and operates a railroad extending from East St. Louis through Illinois, Indiana, to Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, with a branch from a point in Indiana extending to Louisville, in the State of Kentucky; and also owns and operates a connecting road lying entirely in the State of Illinois/and extending from Beardstown, on the Illinois river, to Shawneetown, on the Ohio river.

This corporation was formed by the consolidation of a corporation of the same name (created under a statute of this State) with other railroad companies of other States. This consolidation was accomplished by virtue and authority of a statute of this State providing that this might be done. It is not perceived that this corporation thus formed is any the less, in substance and effect, a corporation “ created under the laws of this State ” than would have been the constituent company of this State in case that corporation, under powers granted by this State, had purchased the lines of railroad outside of this State,.by permission of the States in which they lie, and was operating the same. In our view, this consolidated corporation is one corporation, having franchises from several States, and in its relation to Illinois, must be considered as having a franchise from the State of Illinois, enabling it to transact business in Illinois, and elsewhere by permission of the governing power where it so does.

It is charged by appellants that the assessment of the capital stock of this corporation is not a valid assessment, and was made by the Board of Equalization illegally and fraudulently.

The mode of finding the value of the capital stock to be taxed in Illinois, was to take the value of the entire capital stock of this corporation, and adopting that amount thereof which should bear to the value of the entire capital stock the same proportion as the length of that part of the line lying in Illinois bears to the entire length of the whole line of railroad owned and operated by this corporation.

It is also claimed that the mode of ascertaining the value of that part of the “rolling stock” subject to taxation in Illinois was illegal and void. The mode adopted in that regard was to take the value of all the “rolling stock” of this corporation, and set apart, as a proper value of that part thereof to be taxed in Illinois, so much of the value of all the rolling stock as should bear the same proportion to the value of all the rolling stock as the length of that part of the main lines located in the State of Illinois bore to the entire length of the entire lines belonging to this company.

Under our laws, for the purpose of assessment as a basis for taxation, the property of railroad companies is classified by the statute, and specific names are adopted to designate in a word all the property embraced in each class.

To avoid confusion, it is important to keep in mind the exact meaning of each of these names.

The term “capital stock” means all the property and rights of the corporation of every kind and nature where-ever located.

The term “railroad track” embraces property held for right of way, including superstructures thereon, and this is declared to be “real estate for purposes of taxation.”

“Eolling stock” embraces the movable property belonging to the corporation, and is declared personal property, for the purposes of taxation. By movable property is plainly meant such property as in its ordinary use is taken from one part of the line to another, such as cars, locomotives and their attachments and usual accompaniments.

“Personal property other than rolling stock” embraces tools, materials for repairs, and all other property which, in its ordinary use, is not taken from one part of the line to another. This, with lands not being part of the “railroad track,” constitutes local property.

The local property—the “railroad track and rolling stock” —constitute the tangible property of the corporation, and all other kinds of property, (embracing the franchise of the corporation and such other values as are inaccessible to the local assessor,) belonging to the corporation, constitute the intangible property, and all these combined constitute the capital stock.

For purposes of assessment for taxation, each railroad company is required by law to furnish to the county clerk of each county, annually, a statement showing:

1st. Its “railroad track,” giving the length of its main and all side and second tracks and turn-outs, in such county, and in each town, village and city in such county, and giving the length of the main track on which the rolling stock is used in the State, and the length of the main track on which it is used elsewhere.

The lands and personal property of railroad companies, other than “ railroad track ” and rolling stock,found in each county, is assessed by the local assessors as the property of other persons is assessed, and returned to the county clerk.

Each railroad company is also required by law to furnish annually, to the Auditor of the State, a statement embracing—

1st. Its “railroad track,”—giving the length of the main and side or second tracks and turn-outs, and the proportions in each county, and total in the State.

2d. Its “rolling stock,”—giving the length of the main iraek in each county, the total in this State, and the entire length of the road ; stating the number of ties in track per mile, the weight of iron or steel, per yard, used in main and side tracks; what joints or chairs are used in tracks; the ballasting, whether gravel or dirt; the number and quality of buildings and structures on “ railroad track;” the length of time iron in track has been used, and the length of time the road has been built.

3d. A schedule showing the amount of capital stock authorized, and the number of shares of stock; the amount of capital stock paid up; the value of the shares of stock, and the total amount of all indebtedness, (except current expenses,) and the total listed valuation of all its tangible property in this State.

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

Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Weber, 96 Ill. 443, 1880 Ill. LEXIS 57 (Ill. 1880).

96 Ill. 443 (Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Weber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LeTourneau Railroad Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
481 N.E.2d 864 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1985)
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
336 N.E.2d 170 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1975)
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Flathead County
202 P. 198 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Murray
174 P. 704 (Montana Supreme Court, 1918)
People v. Illinois Central Railroad
273 Ill. 220 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1916)
State v. Illinois Central Railroad
246 Ill. 188 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Bacon v. Boston & Maine Railroad
76 A. 128 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1910)
Smith v. Dana
69 L.R.A. 76 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1905)
Indiana, Decatur & Western Railway Co. v. People ex rel. Jones
66 N.E. 293 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1903)
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. People ex rel. McGough
62 N.E. 869 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Moody v. Shaw
53 N.E. 891 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. People ex rel. County Treasurer
161 Ill. 132 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)