Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission

97 F. 513, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3318
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina
DecidedNovember 4, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 F. 513 (Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 97 F. 513, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3318 (circtednc 1899).

Opinion

SIMONTON, Circuit Judge.

These are nine bills filed by the complainants whose names appear in the caption against the North Carolina corporation commission, its several members and agents, and the officers of the state whose duty it is to enforce the assessment and collection of taxes. The general features of the bills are the same, and (.heir grounds of complaint are similar. They allege that the North Carolina corporation commission has assessed for taxation the value of the property of each of them, and that in so doing they have acted illegally and without warrant of law. There are four grounds upon which this allegation is based: (1) It is denied that the corporation commission had any power to levy the assessment complained of. (2) It is charged that the method adopted for assessing the value of railroad property differs so materially from that provided for assessing other property in the state as to deny the complainants the equal protection of the law. (3) That there has been in the state of North Carolina a systematic and intentional undervaluation of real and personal property, other than railroad property, with the design to discriminate against railroads, and to cast upon them an undue [514]*514share of the burdens of taxation, for the purpose of relieving such other property of its just proportion of state taxation. (4) That there being this systematic and intentional undervaluation of real and personal property, other than railroad property, the property of complainants has been valued higher than that of individuals. The bills each prayed for an injunction. Upon filing the bills, a rule in each case was issued, requiring the defendants to show cause, on a certain day, why an injunction in each case should not issue as prayed for. In the meantime the ordinary restraining order was passed, retaining matters in statu quo; the complainants in each case, however, having been required to tender and pay into the state treasury the amount of the tax, measured by an assessment plainly unquestionable and conceded to be legal. Bank v. Perea, 147 U. S. 87, 13 Sup. Ct. 194; Railroad Co. v. Clark, 153 U. S. 252, 14 Sup. Ct. 809. The returns have all been made; the affidavits filed on each side, numerous beyond example, have been considered; and counsel have been heard in an elaborate and exhaustive discussion.

The first question which arises in these cases, as indeed in every case, is as to the jurisdiction of the court. It is said that the great majority of the complainants are corporations of North Carolina. But the questions raised are federal questions, under the fourteenth amendment. The assessment for taxation is the first, and perhaps the most important, step in the levy and collection of the tax. If the corporation commission have not the power to assess these complainants, then this is the first step in depriving them of their property without due process of law; and if-there be discrimination in the assessment, made with a view of casting upon them the burden of taxation, to the exoneration of other real and personal property, each of them is denied the equal protection of the law. Besides, this would be the taxing of private property for public purposes without compensation. So, each of these cases depends upon the construction and application of the constitution of the United States. This fact gives the court jurisdiction, without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 25 Stat. 433; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449, 4 Sup. Ct. 437; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. And, if the statutes under which the corporation commission act are in conflict with the constitution of the United States, it and the state officers acting under its proceeding may be enjoined. Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 699.

The next question is, has the North Carolina corporation commission the power to levy assessment on the property of railroads? The discussion of this question will require an examination in detail of some of the acts of assembly of the state of North Carolina. The North Carolina corporation commission was created by an act of assembly ratified March 6, 1899, and made of force from and after April 5, 1899. It provides for three commissioners, — the first board to be elected by the legislature; all subsequent boards to be elected by the people, beginning with the general election in 1900. The corporation commission is given a general supervision over railroads, steamboat, navigation, and canal companies, express, telegraph, and telephone companies, building and loan associations, banks, and sleep[515]*515ing-ear companies. In the second section of the act the duties of the commission are minutely set out in 24 subdivisions. It may assist this examination to set them out. They have power to make rates of freight, passenger, and express tariffs; to make reasonable and just rules for corporations handling express or freight; to make rules to prevent discrimination; to make just rates for use of railroad cars carrying freight or passengers; to prevent rebates; to make through rates for transportation of freight, passengers, or express; to make rales for handling freight and baggage at stations; to make rates for transportation of packages by express companies or corporations; to make rules as to contracts entered into by one railroad company or corporation to carry over any of its line cars of any other company or corporation; to make rates for any telegraph or telephone company; to make rates for rental of telephones, this not to apply to telephone lines hereafter constructed, nor to telephone instruments giving interstate connection, until three years after ratification of the act; to require establishment of stations by any corporation or company engaged in transportation of freight or passengers and the erection of depots; to require the change or repair of stations and additions thereto; to require separate waiting rooms for white and colored races; to require construction of side tracks by any railroad company to industries established or to he established; to exercise the power over banks heretofore exercised by the state treasurer; to appoint persons to examine and report; to give all information to the state treasurer as to the solvency of hanks; to exercise certain powers over building and loan associations; to appoint suitable persons to examine them; to collect all fees for these purposes heretofore collected by the auditor of the state; to prescribe rales of practice and proceeding in all matters before them; to perform all the duties, and exercise all the powers, imposed or conferred by chapter 320 of the Public Law's of 1891 and the acts amendatory thereto. This chapter (Laws 1891, e. 320) is entitled “An act to provide for the general supervision of railroads, steamboat or canal companies, express and telegraph companies doing business in the state of North Carolina,” popularly known as the “Railroad Commission Act.” It also goes into minute detail as to the powers and duties of the railroad commissioners, — as minutely as does the corporation commission act. Chapter 320, Acts 1891, was ratified on 5th of March, 1891, and went into effect 1st of April thereafter. There appears but one amendment to this chapter 320 eo nomine.

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

Related

Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission
99 F. 162 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 F. 513, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-ry-co-v-north-carolina-corp-commission-circtednc-1899.