Maryland case law › Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co.

57 Md. 31 (1881) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: ReversedRobinson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe Mayor of Baltimore appealed from a pro forma decree enjoining collection of municipal taxes assessed on shares of the capital stock of the Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co., a street railway corporation chartered and doing business in Maryland.

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an, appeal from a pro forma decree, enjoining "the appellant from taking any steps to collect municipal 33 taxes assessed and levied upon the shares of the capital stock of the appellee, a corporation chartered by and doing business in this State. It is not contended that there is any provision in the appellee’s charter, nor any general law exempting its •shares of stock from taxation. The contention however is, that the taxes, the collection of which is now sought to be enjoined, were levied upon an assessment made by the State Tax Commissioner, and that this officer had no authority under the law to make such assessment.

And this of course depends upon the construction of the Act of 1878, ch. 178, defining and prescribing the duties of Tax Commissioner. Sec. 149 of that Act, provides that he shall assess for State purposes, the shares of capital stock of all corporations chartered by and doing business in this 'State, whose shares of stock are liable to assessment and taxation by the laws of this State; and he shall have all the powers and perform the duties in reference thereto, which have heretofore devolved upon the Comptroller. The powers and duties of the Comptroller in this respect, are prescribed by sec. 145 of the Act of 1874, ch. 483, which directs, that he shall assess the shares of ■capital stock of all corporations located and doing business in this State, — “ except railroad and canal companies.” It is clear then that the Tax Commissioner has no power to assess the shares of stock of railroad companies, because such shares are excepted from the assessment to he made ■by the Comptroller under the Act 1874. The question then is whether the appellee, a street railway company, is a railroad company within the meaning of sec. 145.

We are now dealing with an Act of the Legislature providing for the assessment and taxation of property, and the question is not whether, the term “ railroad company ” in its broadest sense may not he understood as including a street railway company, but whether as used in see. 145, in excepting the shares of stock of railroad com 34 panies from assessment by the Comptroller, the Legislature meant to embrace the shares of stock of a street railway. Now in order to understand the meaning of the term railroad company as used in sec¡ 145, and the reasons why the stock of such companies was excepted from assessment, it is necessary to refer to the Act of 1874, chap. 408, by which it will be seen, that a tax upon the gross, receipts of all railroad companies worked by. steam, was. imposed in lieu of all other State taxes. And hence in the subsequent Act, chap. 483, passed at the same session of the Legislature, providing for the assessment and taxation of property, the shares of stock of railroad companies were excepted from the assessment to be made,, by the Comptroller for State purposes. The State had already imposed a tax- upon the gross receipts of such-companies in lieu of a tax upon the capital stock. • There is, however, no tax imposed upon the gross receipts of a street railway.

And when we find in the Act of 1878, chap. 483, provision for the assessment and. valuation of' the shares of stock of all corporations, chartered by and doing business in this State, and the same provision in-every assessment law since 1841, we can hardly suppose the Legislature meant to exempt the shares of capital' stock of street railways from taxation. There could he-no reason why corporations of every kind should be liable to taxation except street railway companies. And if such had been the intention of the Legislature, it is but fair to-presume, that such intention would have been declared in plain and explicit terms, and not left to be inferred by implication or construction. We are of opinion, therefore, that in excepting the stock of railroad companies from assessment under the Act of 1874, the Legislature meant railroad companies-worked by steam, and that this exception was made because-the State had imposed a tax upon the gross receipts of such 35 companies in lieu of other taxation.

And that it was the duty of the Comptroller to assess the shares of stock of street railway companies. If this be so, then there can he no question as to the power of the Tax Commissioner to make such assessment. In matters of form, it must he admitted that the certificates of assessment sent by the Tax Commissioner to the Appeal Tax Court, arc in many respects defective. The certificate of 1880, is not even

This is a preview of Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co.. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.