State v. Parker

32 N.J.L. 426
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 15, 1868
StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.J.L. 426 (State v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Parker, 32 N.J.L. 426 (N.J. 1868).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Depue, J.

The assessment in question was made against the prosecutors, upon the capital stock and accumulated surplus of the company, at the rate of one and a half per cent., being the rate at which the real and personal estate owned by individuals in the same ward was taxed.

It was conceded on the argument, that the prosecutors, at a sale of the real estate, franchises, and works of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company, made in pursuance of an act passed on the fifteenth day of February, 1844, to relieve the creditors of that company, became the purchasers, and that by such purchase they acquired not only the property of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company, but also the franchises of that company, including any exemption from, or restriction upon, the power of taxation, that was granted in the original charter.

By the eighteenth section of the act incorporating the Trenton Delaware Falls Company, passed on the sixteenth -of February, 1831, (Adn of 1831, p. 131,) it is enacted, that as soon as the said dam and other works are finished so as to be used, the managers of the said company shall cause to be filed, under oath or affirmation of at least two officers of said company, a statement of the amount of the cost of said water power, and other works, with its appendages, including all expenses, in the office of the secretary of state; and it shall be lawful for the council and general assembly of this state, at any time hereafter, to levy a tax on the company hereby incorporated, not exceeding the half of one per cent, upon its capital stock subscribed and paid in.”

The prosecutors insist that by this section they have a ■contract with the slate restricting the power of taxation [434]*434within the limit of one half of one per cent, upon their capital stock subscribed for and paid in, and that the tax imposed in excess of that rate is unlawful.

It was urged that the prosecutors, by force of this section,, came within the class of corporations excepted from tax by the fifteenth section of the tax law of 1866, (Acts of 1866, p. 1084,) as being exempted from taxation by virtue of any contract in their charters or other contracts with the state. If this position be correct the entire assessment is illegal. The authority to assess private corporations for their capital stock and accumulated surplus, is conferred by the fifteenth, section, and all such corporations as 'have such contract with the state, are entirely excluded from the subjects of taxation, based upon capital stock or accumulated surplus. The language of the section is: That all private corporations of this state, except banking institutions, and except those which, by virtue of any contract in their charters, or other-contracts with this state, are expressly exempted from taxation, and except mutual life insurance companies specially-taxed, shall be, and are hereby required to be respectively assessed and taxed at the full amount of their capital stock-paid in and accumulated surplus.”

To bring a corporation, not being a banking or insurance company, within the exception of this section, it must be one having a contract of entire exemption from all such taxation for state, county, township, or municipal purposes, as is imposed by the general system of taxation in force in the state. Unless the prosecutors have a contract of entire exemption from all such taxation, they come within the class of corporations made taxable by this section, and being taxable, are to be taxed for their capital stock and accumulated surplus at the same rates as the property of private individuals is taxed.

The eighteenth section of the charter of the prosecutors contains no express provision, exempting them from the usual and ordinary taxation for state, county, and municipal purposes. But it was argued that the restriction in the last [435]*435clause of the section, while not in express terms made applicable to such taxation, by necessary implication extends thereto; and while it may not amount to an entire exemption from taxation for general purposes, yet it must be allowed the force of a limitation on the power of the legislature, to subject the company to taxation under the general tax laws, which may, from time to time, be passed by the legislature, beyond the sum of one half of one per cent, on tlieir capital stock.

The power of taxation is an essential attribute of sovereignty, reaching to all persons, and property belonging to the body politic. It resides in the government as part of itself, and need not be reserved where property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies, and it will never be presumed to be relinquished unless the intention to do so is declared in clear and unambiguous terms. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514; Philadelphia and Wilmington R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 393 ; State v. Newark, 2 Dutcher 519.

This power is necessarily unlimited in its extent, unless restrained or qualified by constitutional provisions, or legislative enactment, assuming the form of an irrepealable contract, and for that reason within the protection of the constution. No limitation or restriction upon the exercise of this essential attribute of government, will be raised by implication. The intention to limit or abridge must be declared by positive legislative enactment, expressed in a.s olear and unambiguous terms as would be required to constitute a total renunciation of the power of taxation.

This unlimited power of taxation does not, however, include the power to levy an arbitrary sum upon a single corporation. It extends only to the right to subject the property of a corporation to such taxation as by the general laws of the state may be imposed on the kind of property of which it is the owner, or to subject it to such taxation as corporations, as a class, are made liable to. Beyond the exercise [436]*436of this power of taxation, the legislature cannot assess upon a single corporation an arbitrary assessment, and compel its payment, because that would be a taking of private property for public use without compensation, unless the power to make such an assessment is expressly reserved.

The section in question does not contain either an exemption from taxation for general purposes, or a restriction on the power of the legislature to subject this company to the same taxation as by general laws may be laid upon corporations. It amounts only to a reservation of the right to the state to require of this corporation the payment of such sum in the nature of a bonus for its corporate franchises, as the legislature may see fit, in its discretion, to impose, within tiie limit of one-half of one per cent, on its capital stock subscribed for and paid in. It has none of the features of a provision restricting or regulating taxation from year to year. The right reserved is to make only one single assessment, and that assessment can only be made by virtue of a special act of the legislature, specifically requiring this company to pay such sum as the legislature may name, within the stipulated limits, and when that right is once exercised, the power of the legislature to resort to this method of assessment is exhausted.

That this is the true construction of the charter of the prosecutors, is made apparent by a reference to contemporary legislation, by which exemptions from general taxation are granted.

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

Related

Providence Bank v. Billings
29 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 N.J.L. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-parker-nj-1868.