Appeal Tax Court v. Northern Central Railway Co.

Situs for the Assessment of the Rolling Stock of a Railroad Company. The home office of the appellee being in the City of Baltimore, its rolling stock must be taxed in that city.

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. This appeal was taken from a pro forma order passed hy the Court below, on the 9th September, 1878, in proceedings instituted hy the Northern Central Railway Company under the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 28, whereby the Appeal Tax Court was directed to strike certain property of the Company, as not subject to taxation, from the list of property, valued and assessed to it. From this order the Appeal Tax Court appealed. The case is further stated in the opinion of the Court. The statutory provisions, relating to the appellee, construed by this Court in State vs. Northern Central R. W. Co., 44 Md., 160, differ essentially from those, which were construed by the Supreme Court in the cases of the Central Railroad and Banking Company vs. Georgia, and South Western Railroad Company vs. Georgia, 92 U. S., 666-677. In the Georgia cases, the Central Railroad and Banking Company, and the South Western Railroad Company were not merged in the respective new organizations of which they became members, and their respective original charters remained operative. The cases which are precisely analogous to the case decided by the Court of Appeals in 44 Md., 160-169, and by which its reasoning and conclusions are fully supported, are the cases of Shields vs. Ohio, 95 U. S., 320-325; and Railroad Company vs. Maine, 96 U. S., 507-513. The appellee was incorporated by the Pennsylvania Act of May 3rd, 1854, as well as"by the Maryland Act of 1854, ch. 250; and was, therefore, a distinct corporate body in each one of said States. Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co., vs. Wheeler, 1 Black, 297, 298; Railroad Co. vs. Harris, 12 Wall., 82, 83; Railroad Co. vs. Whitton, 13 Wall., 284; Muller vs. Dows, 94 U. S., 446-448. The presumption of law, in the absence of averment and proof to the contrary, is that the valuation of the rolling stock, belonging to the appellee, was made in the locality in which the appellee had its principal office, or place of business, in this State. State vs. Reaney, 13 Md., 240; Strother vs. Lucas, 12 Pet., 437. If the rolling stock of the appellee must he treated as movable fixtures, then, until some provision is made by law for creating different situs, for different portions of such rolling stock, in use upon different parts of the line of the appellee within this State, the valuation of such property must he made at the principal place of business of the appellee in this State. Such property is confessedly not real estate in the meaning attached to those words in the Gen eral Assessment Act. It is not property, which is, as a matter of fact, permanently located in any city or county of this State. It is property used from day to day in carrying freight and passengers to and from the situs of the appellee in the City of Baltimore. This property, consisting, under the ruling in 18 Md., 217, 218, of movable fixtures, belonging to the appellee, which have confessedly no situs of their own as property permanently located in any city or county of this State, must, therefore, for purposes of taxation, under our existing laws, he located at the situs of their owner, the appellee, in the City of Baltimore. They can he properly valued in no other place. Pacific R. R. vs. Cass Co., 53 Mo., 31, 32 ; Hodges on Railways, (5th Eng. Ed.,) 629, 665 ; Stevens vs. Buffalo and N. Y. R. R. Co., 31 Barb., 596; Beardsley and Kirkland vs. Ontario Bank, 31 Barb., 619; Randall vs. Elwell, 52 N. Y., 521; Orange and Alexandria R. R. Co. vs. City Council of Alexandria, 17 Grattan, 185; Railroad Co. vs. County of Morgan, 14 Ill., 163 ; Pacific R. R. Co. vs. Cass Co., 53 Mo., 31, 32; R. R. Co. vs. Saco, 60 Maine, 196.