TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Reid

The Raleigh and Gaston Railroad Co. v. Reid, Sheriff

Raleigh & Gaston R.R. v. Reid, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 269 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 26, 1872
Judges
Davis
Citations
80 U.S. 26920 L. Ed. 57013 Wall. 2691871 U.S. LEXIS 1338
Cited by 57 9 descriptions by later courts
Syllabus
The principle of the preceding case affirmed in a case where the exemption from taxation was limited to a term of years, and where the dividends did not exceed a certain sum.
Headnotes
Note. .At the same time with the preceding case was adjudged another, from the same court, the two cases being of kindred character, and alike in their essential features, the difference between the two consisting chiefly in the extent of the exemption It was the case of
Summary
In the case just above adjudged and reported, the property of the railroad company could not by its charter be taxed under any circumstances. In the case of the charter of the railroad company now under consideration the exemption was limited to a term of fifteen years. After this limitation expired the legislature was at liberty to tax the individual shares of the stockholders whenever their annual profits exceeded 8 per cent., provided that the tax did not exceed twenty-five cents a share per annum. The pleadings in the case showed that the annual profits on the shares never reached 8 per cent. It is laid down in Lord Hobart’s Reports* that affirmatives in statutes that introduce a new rule imply a negative of all else. Father Plowden† equally declares that when a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode. The tax is in violation of rules thus anciently and authoritatively laid down; rules conformed to obvious sense and justice. argued that such exemptions were so grossly impolitic that they could not be considered as legitimate exercise of legislative power.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Davis

*270 Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

The only way in which the property of this company could be reached for taxation at all was after the limitation of the fifteen years had expired. The legislature was then at liberty to tax the individual shares of the stockholders, whenever their annual profits exceeded 8 per cent. When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode. It was the manifest object of the legislation which incorporated this company to invite the investment of capital in the enterprise of building this road; and no means better adapted for the purpose could have been devised, short of total immunity from taxation. As long as the capital was unproductive it contributed nothing to the support of the government, and even after it became remunerative, its contribution was fixed by the terms of the charter, and could not, in any event, exceed twenty-five cents on the share of stock. The impolicy of this legislation is apparent, but there is no relief to the State, for the rights secured by the contract are protected from invasion by the Constitution of the United States.

As the pleadings show that the annual profits on the shares of stock have never reached 8 per cent., it follows that they were not subject to any public charge or tax.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, In conformity with this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 9 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 57 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 11893–1894: 11909–1910: 11923–1924: 11929–1930: 31931–1932: 31933–1934: 11939–1940: 21941–1942: 11943–1944: 11945–1946: 11947–1948: 11953–1954: 11955–1956: 21957–1958: 11963–1964: 31965–1966: 11967–1968: 11973–1974: 11991–1992: 21993–1994: 11995–1996: 11997–1998: 41999–2000: 32001–2002: 12005–2006: 32007–2008: 12009–2010: 12011–2012: 22013–2014: 32015–2016: 42017–2018: 12019–2020: 22021–2022: 118832026peak 1997 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Carlton Keith Roper v. George O'Neil Butler462 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2006)
  2. Morgan v. Tennessee Valley Authority28 F. Supp. 732 (E.D. Tenn. 1939)
  3. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013)
  4. Samuel Babalola v. Arun Sharma746 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2014) · Concurrence
  5. Joseph Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.646 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2011)
  6. Ex Parte York County Natural Gas Authority238 F. Supp. 964 (W.D.S.C. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Jarvin Lopez v. Attorney General United States49 F.4th 231 (3d Cir. 2022)
  2. Montgomery v. BarrNo. 2020-3261 (D.D.C. Dec. 24, 2020)
  3. Droegemeier v. WhitakerNo. 9:19-cv-00014 (D. Mont. Sept. 17, 2019)
  4. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Preston L. Doerflinger, Director, Office of Management and Enterprise Services2017 OK AG 6
  5. United States v. Singh195 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2016)
  6. Brandon v. Sherwood (In re Sann)546 B.R. 840 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2016)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list