Skip to content

MacKall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company

MacKall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co., 94 U.S. 308 (1877)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: March 26, 1877
Docket: No. 183
Judges: Milleb
Citations: 94 U.S. 30824 L. Ed. 1611876 U.S. LEXIS 1865

Cited by 13 Original from court

Headnotes

1. The canal .and other works of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, situate in the District of Columbia, having, by an act of Congress of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat. 101), been exempted from taxation, a sale in 18G4'of any part thereof, on account of taxes alleged to be due thereon, was void. 2. The question of the company’s forfeiture of their right to hold, free from taxation, property after they ceased to use it for canal purposes, can be judicially determined only in a direct proceeding by the public authorities. It cannot bo made an issue for the first time in the trial of a question of private right between other parties.

Summary

Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. This was an action of ejectment for a part of Square No. 3, in the city of Washington. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, plaintiff below, proved a complete paper title to the land, and a continuous occupation of it for thirty years prior to 1867. The defendant entered that year. Proof was' made of an act of the legislature' of Virginia, approved Jan. 27, 1824, entitled “An Act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,” the ninth section of which provides, “ That for and in consideration of the expenses, the said stockholders will be at ... . 'the said' canal and all' other works, aforesaid, &c., shall be vested, &c., and- be for ever exempt from the payment of any tax, imposition,.or assessment-whatsoever; ” and also of an 'act of - Congress approved March 3. 1825 (4 Stat. 101). It appeared from the proof that the land in dispute had not been used for canal purposes since the year 1830, but had been leased or rented to various parties. ■ The defendant below thereupon offered to show that it had been regularly listed and entered for taxation, and sold in 1864 for the non-payment of ta-xes assessed against it; and that he was in possession, claiming under a deed from the authorities of the-District pursuant to such sale. The court excluded the evidence. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,, and-a judgment was rendered thereon. The defendant then sued out this writ, and assigns for error the action of the court below in excluding the evidence offered by him.

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

Opinion — Milleb

Mr. Justice Milleb delivered the opinion of the court.

In the action of ejectment which is the foundation of this case the defendant in error was plaintiff, and produced evidence which made an unquestioned prima facie title to the land, with possession for more than thirty years undisturbed, until the tortious entry of defendant in 1867. On this the canal company recovered judgment; and the only error assigned is, that the court refused to receive evidence of a tax title in the defendant. The tax sale on which this title rested took place in the year 1864.

The statute of Virginia under which the canal company was incorporated contained a provision exempting the canal and its works from taxation; and this was adopted, so far as the company had property in the District of Columbia, by the act of Congress of March 3, 1825, 4 Stat. 101 , which authorized the construction of the canal in the District.

As there could be no legal taxes on this property, the sale in 1864 was therefore void, and the offer to prove a tax title was properly rejected.

It is argued in opposition to this view that the canal com *310 pany had, by non-user of that part of the canal which constituted the locus in quo, forfeited its title and its right of exemption from taxation; and testimony was given to prove this non-user.

But we are of opinion that the question of such forfeiture could only be established by a direct proceeding on the part of the public authorities, and a decision to that effect in a proper tribunal, and cannot be made an issue for the first time in the trial of this question of private right between the present parties.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hutchison v. Brown1916 OK 906, 167 P. 624
Newport News & Old Point Railway & Electric Co. v. Hampton Roads Railway & Electric Co.47 S.E. 839 (Va. 1904)
State ex rel. City of Reno v. Reno Traction Co.171 P. 375 (Nev. 1918)
Johnson v. Jackson1932 OK 237, 9 P.2d 950
Nicolson v. Brown135 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.236 U.S. 165 (1915)

Most recent

Nicolson v. Brown135 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
Johnson v. Jackson1932 OK 237, 9 P.2d 950
Fort Worth Gas Co. v. Latex Oil & Gas Co.299 S.W. 705 (Tex. App. 1927)
State ex rel. City of Reno v. Reno Traction Co.171 P. 375 (Nev. 1918)
First Construction Co. v. State of New York116 N.E. 1020 (N.Y. 1917) · Dissent
Hutchison v. Brown1916 OK 906, 167 P. 624

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.