Marye v. Baltimore O. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

It is not denied, as it cannot be, that the state of Virginia has rightful power to levy and collect a tax upon such property used and found within its territorial limits, as this property was used and found, if and whenever it may choose, by apt legislation, to exert its authority over the subject. It is quite true. as the situs of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company is in the state of Maryland, that also, upon general principles, is the situs of all its personal property; but for purposes of taxation, as well as for other purposes, that situs may be fixed in whatever locality the property may be brought and used by its owner by the law of the place where it is found. If the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company is permitted by the state of Virginia to bring into its territory, and there habitually to use and employ, a portion of its movable personal property, and the railroad company chooses so to do, it would certainly be competent and legitimate for the state to impose upon such property, thus used and employed, its fair share of the burdens of taxation imposed upon other similar property used in the like way by its own citizens. And such a tax might be properly assessed and collected, in cases like the present, where the specific and individual items of property so used and employed were not continuously the same, but were constantly changing, according to the exigencies of the business. In such cases the tax might be fixed by an appraisement and valuation of the average amount of the property thus habitually used, and collected by distraint upon any portion that might at any time be found. Of course, the lawfulness of a tax upon vehicles of transportation used by common carriers might have to be considered, in particular instances, with reference to its operation as a regulation of commerce among the states; but the mere fact that they were employed as vehicles of transportation in the interchange of interstate commerce would not render their taxation invalid. No question on that account arises in this case. But, looking at the statute under which the proceeding in question has been taken for the taxation of this property, we think it quite clear that it has no application to the rolling stock owned by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company employed by it, in the manner described, in the operation of other railroads in Virginia. The terms of the act, indeed, include 'every railroad and canal company not exempted from taxation by virtue of its charter;' but that language, according to a general rule of interpretation, must be confined to corpr ations deriving their authority from the laws of Virginia. It is apparent, also, from the other expressions contained in the law, as well as its whole purview, that it was intended to apply only to such domestic corporations as, in the case of railroad companies, were the owners of railroads, and the property usually appurtenant thereto, lying and being within the state. According to the description of the act, the railroad company is supposed to own a roadway and track, depots and depot grounds, station buildings and fixtures, and machine shops, together with real estate, rolling stock, and telegraph lines. Every such company is required to report its gross and net receipts; and a specific provision is made that, if its road is only in part within the commonwealth, the report shall show what part is so, and what proportion the same bears to its entire length, apportioning the receipts accordingly. In case of a failure of the company to make such a report, or to pay the tax assessed upon its property, it is provided that it shall be immediately assessed, under the direction of the auditor of public accounts, by some person appointed by him for that purpose, rating its real estate and rolling stock at $20,000 per mile, on which a tax shall be levied at the annual rate levied upon the value of other property for the year. None of these provisions are applicable to the case of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company in respect to its ownership of the rolling stock in question.

It follows from this that it was not liable for the payment of the taxes, the collection of which was enjoined by the decree of the circuit court. That decree is accordingly affirmed.