Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/513

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 489. 1845, the legislature of Ohio chartered a bank, stipulating that the bank should pay a certain tax, which should be in lieu of all other taxes ; in 1852 an act was passed, levying taxes on the bank to a greater amount, and this last act was held void as impairing the obligation of a contract. 1 § 489. Exemptions from taxation constituting a contract on the part of the state not to tax, are held never to Never arise arise by implication; 2 and are construed narrowly byl1 Lea (Term.), 703; Neustadt v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 31 111. 484. But these doctrines have not been universally acquiesced in by the state courts, or even by all the judges of the Federal Supreme Court. That a state cannot bargain away its taxing powers was held in Mechauics and Traders' Bank v. Debolt, 1 Ohio St. 591; Toledo Bank v. Bond, ib. 622; Skelly v. Jefferson Branch Bank, 9 Ohio St. 606; Mott v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 9. See Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H. 138; West Wisconsin R. R. Co. v. Supervisors, 35 Wis. 257; State v. Nor. Cen. Ry. Co., 90 Md. 447: Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 439, per Chase, C. J., Miller and Field, JJ., dissenting. Com- pare the remarks of Marshall, C. J., in Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 519, 563, and the strong adverse criticism of this case in Angell and Ames on Corp., §§465-469. 1 Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Accord, State Bank of Ohio v. Kuoop, 16 How. 369. See Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133; State v. Berry, 2 Harrison (N. J.), 80. A charter exempting the prop- erty of a railroad company, and the shares therein from taxation, ex- empts not only the rolling stock and real estate, but also the franchise of the corporation ; and a subsequent law taxing the franchise impairs the obligation of a contract, and is void. tion. Wilmington Railroad v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264 ; Raleigh and Gaston R. R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 269; Worth v. Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co., 89 N. C. 291; Worth v. Peters- burg R. R. Co., 89 N. C. 301. In Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 129, the exemption of " capital stock " from taxation was construed to ex- empt the shares in the hands of share- holders. 2 Wilmington, etc., R. R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 146 U. S. 279. A provi- sion in an act consolidating two rail- road companies, requiring the con- solidated company to pay a tax of one-quarter per cent, on its stock, does not prevent the legislature from imposing further and different taxes. Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206. See, also, People v. Commissioners of Taxes, 82 N. Y. 459; Lincoln St. Ry. Co. v. Lincoln, 61 Neb. 109. The charter of a street railroad company provided that the company should pay a license of $30 for each car run by the company ; subse- quently the legislature raised the license to $50. Held, that there was no contract to require only $30. Railway Co. v. Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 528. The court said that even if this provision had constituted a contract, under its constitutional power reserved to alter and amend the legislature could have imposed the additional license. Ib. Ace. John- son v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. St. 445; 493