Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/279

 S73 FSDKBàL BSPOBTEB. �for taxation at the gross sum of $3,370,700, and oertified their action to the eomptroUer. �At this juncture complainant filed ifcs bill, in and by which it prays for an injunction restraining the comptroller "from certifying to the county court clerk of each county, and like- wise to the mayor pf each incorporated town, the amount assessed as af oresaid to be taxed by said counties or towna respectively against complainant for the years mentioned;" and "if, before this application for an injunction can be made, said defendant (the comptroller) shall have made said cer- tificate, thep that by mandatory injunction he be ordered to ■withdraw the same," and for other and appropriate relief. �A restraining order was granted until this application could be hpard, and we are now, after full argument, called on to decide whether complainant is entitled to the injunction prayed for. �The doctrine that the legislature of a state unrestricted by constitutional prohibition, has power to contract in a charter authorizing the formation of a corporation for an exemption of its property from taxation, has not been denied in the argument of this case. The right to do this has been repeatedly afiSnned by the supreme court of the United States. Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460. And the supreme court of the state has held, in the K. e 0. R. Co. v. Hicks, 1 Leg. Eep. 343, that no sueh prohibition is contained in the constitution of 1834 — the constitution in force when the several charters, under which the complainant claims exemption, were passed. It'is further admitted that the twenty-ninth section of the act incorporating the Nash ville & Chattanooga Eailroad Com- pany is a good and valid exemption to that company for the period therein specified; and that the complainant has, by its lease, consolidation, and purchase, sueceeded to ail the rights, privileges, and immunities of the several corporations ■which it represents in this litigation. On these several prop- ositions the parties are agreed. It is on the next and suo- ceeding issue that the controversy arises. The complainant contends that the grant contained in the several charters to which complainant is entitled, of ail the "rights and privi- ����