Skip to main content
· 3/10/1890

Bell's Gap Railroad v. Pennsylvania

Citations

  • 134 U.S. 232
  • 10 S. Ct. 533
  • 33 L. Ed. 892
  • 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1963

Syllabus

<p>The plaintiff in error failed to make a return of its loans to the state authorities as required by, law, whereupon the auditor general, under direction of state law, made out an account against it containing the following-charge : “ Nominal value of scrip, bonds and certificates of indebtedness held by residents of Pennsylvania, $539,000 — tax three mills — $1617.00.”' The company appealed from this to the Court of Common Pleas, which ■ decided in its favor, and the Commonwealth from thence to the Supreme Court of the State, which rendered a judgment in favor of the Commonwealth for $666. Among the grounds for the appeal was, that the tax was in violation of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the assessment was for the nominal value, and not for the real value of the bonds; because the owners of the bonds had no notice, and no opportunity to be heard; because the company was taxed for property that it did not own; and because the deduction of the tax from.the interest due the bondholders in Pennsylvania took their property without due process of law, and denied to them the equal protection of the laws. The case being brought to this court from the state court by writ of error, a motion was made to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; to which was united a motion to affirm; Held,, ’</p> <p>(1) That there was clearly a federal question raised, and the writ could not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction;</p> <p>(2) That although it was doubtful whether, under the rules, there was sufficient color fo'r the motion to dismiss to justify the court in-considering the motion to affirm, yet, as the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in its opinion did not seem to have expressly passed upon the federal question, which was clearly in the record, the court could consider that there was color for making that motion;</p> <p>(3) That the provision for the assessment of the tax upon the nominal or face value of the bonds, instead of upon their actual value, was a part of

Judges: Bradley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.