NEW ORLEANS CITY AND LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
NEW ORLEANS

U.S. | 1892-02-29
No. 119
143 U.S. 192 Supreme Court of the United States (1892) Caution
Also reported at: 36 L. Ed. 121 · 12 S. Ct. 406 · SCDB 1891-109 · 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2016
Cited by 40 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The New Orleans City Railroad Company challenged a license tax imposed by the city, arguing it had acquired exemption from taxation either under state law or through its charter contract with the city. The Supreme Court held that exemptions from taxation are never presumed and must be declared in clear and unmistakable language, and that the railroad company's charter to build and operate a street railway was subject to taxation like any other property unless explicitly exempted. The Court affirmed the city's right to impose the license tax, establishing that corporations take their charters subject to the state's general taxing power unless a specific exemption is expressly granted.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justioe Guay,

Me. Justioe Guay,

after stating the facts as above, delivered the ©pinion of the court. Exemption from taxation is never to be presumed. The legislature itself cannot be held to have intended to surrender the taxing power, unless its intention to do so has been declared in clear and unmistakable words. Vicksburg &c. Railroad v. Dennis, 116 U. S. 665, 668, and cases cited.. Assuming, without deciding, that the city of New Orleans was authorized to exempt the New Orleans City Eailroad Company from taxation under general laws of the State, the contract between thém affords no evidence of an intention to do so. The franchise to build and run a street railway was as much subject to taxation as any other property.

In Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133, upon which the plaintiff in error much relied, the only point decided was that an act of the legislature, continuing the charter of a bank, upon condition that the corporation should pay certain sums annually for public purposes, and declaring that, upon its accepting and complying with the provisions of the act, the faith of the State was pledged not to impose any further tax or burden upon the corporation during the continuance of the charter, exempted the stockholders from taxation on their stock; and so much of the opinion as might, taken by itself, seem to support this writ of error, has been often explained or disapproved. State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 386, 401, 402; People v. Commissioners, 4 Wall. 244, 259; Jefferson Bank v. Shelly, 1 Black, 436, 446; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 690, 694; Stone v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 328.

The case at bar cannot be distinguished from that of Memphis Gaslight Co. v. Shelby County, in which this court upheld a license tax upon a corporation which had acquired by its charter the privilege of erecting gas works and making and selling gas for fifty years; and, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, said: “ The argument of counsel is that if no express contract against taxation can be found here, it must be implied, because to permit the State to tax this company by a license tax for the privilege granted by its charter is to destroy that privilege. But the answer is that the company took their charter subject to the same right of taxation in the State that applies to-all other privileges and to all other property. If they wished or intended to have an exemption of any kind from taxation, or felt that it was necessary to the profitable working of their business, they should have required a provision to that effect in their charter. The Constitution of the United States does not profess in all cases to protect property from unjust and oppressive taxation by the States. That is left to the state constitutions and state. laws.” 109 U. S. 398, 400:

The New Orleans City Railroad Company having had no right of exemption from the tax in question, it is unnecessary to consider whether such a right, ha,d it existed, would have passed by the conveyance to the plaintiff in error. See Chesapeake & Ohio Railway v. Miller, 114 U. S. 116, 184, and cases cited; Picard v. East Tennessee &c. Railroad, 130 U. S. 637.

Judgment affirmed.’

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Town OF Surfside, 177 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …o-fault in the reasoning of the lower court that the ordinance in question is not invalid as- an impairment of contract, and therefore decline to reverse upon this point. New Orleans City & Lake Railroad Company v. City of New Orleans, 143 U.S. 193, 12 S.Ct. 406, 36 L.Ed. 121 (1892) Memphis Gaslight District v. Taxing District of Shelby County, Tennessee, 109 U.S. 398, 3 S.Ct [*559] 205, 27 L.Ed. 976 (1883); St. Louis v. United Railways Co., 210 U.S. 266, 28 S.Ct. 630, 52 L.Ed. 1054 (1908); Puget Sound Powe…
  • Burnet v. Coronado OIL & GAS Co., 285 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1932)
    …ston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 226, qualifying Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217; In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661, 670, qualifying Runkle v. United States, 122 U. S. 543, 555; Nevo Orleans City & Lake R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192, 195, qualifying Gordon v. Tax Appeal Court, 3 How. 133; Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 342, qualifying State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284; Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Ry. Co, v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 568, 5…
  • Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1982)
    …s been specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation.’ ” Brief for Secretary of Interior 13, n. 7 (quoting St. Louis v. United R. Co., 210 U. S. 266, 280). See also New Orleans City & Lake R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192, 195; New York Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 U. S. 573, 590-593. The principal issue in these cases cited by the Secretary was whether the retroactive imposition of a franchise tax violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution or was so…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw