MACKALL
v.
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL COMPANY
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.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company brought an ejectment action to recover land it had possessed undisturbed for more than thirty years until the defendant's tortious entry in 1867. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the canal company, holding that a tax sale in 1864 was void because federal law exempted the canal company's property from taxation, and therefore the defendant's offer to prove title through the tax sale was properly rejected. The Court further held that any question of whether the canal company had forfeited its exemption through non-use of the property could only be determined through a direct proceeding by public authorities, not as a collateral issue in a private dispute between the parties.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 company 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Prods. Ref. Co., 236 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1915)…ruly, . “Corn Products Refining Company.” Finch v. Ullman, 105 Missouri, 255; Taylor v. Portsmouth, &c. St. Ry., 91 Maine, 193; Smith v. Mayfield, 163 Illinois, 447; Detroit City Ry. v. Mills, 85 Michigan, 634; Mackall v. Chesapeake &c. Canal Co., 94 U. S. 308; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.…
-
Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Cotton Cnty. Gin Co., 40 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1930)…Cotton gins are naturally assigned to the second class, which includes inns, cabs, and grist mills. The fact that grist mills may be operated by water power is a nonessential of its publie character. Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, 24 L. Ed. 161. A gin is similar to a grist mill where farmers must have their grain ground to render it suitable for use. The mill prepares the grain for that purpose. The gin separates the cotton from the seed and prepares both for market. But the process whethe…
-
Owens v. Corp. Comm'n of State of Okla. (W.D. Okla. 1930)…r, 153 U. S. 391, 14 S. Ct. 857, 38 L. Ed. 757, where a North Dakota statute regulating the charge for service rendered by country elevators dotted over the state, was upheld; and the close analogy to Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310, 24 L. Ed. 161, where a steam grist mill was held to be a public utility; and the general language used in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77, and in Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 S. Ct. 468, 36 L. Ed. 247, and the opinions expressed in Tallassee O…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence