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

97 F. 513, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3318
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina·Decided November 4, 1899·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] share 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.

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

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

97 F. 513 (Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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