Central Pacific Railroad v. California

Citations

• 162 U.S. 91
• 16 S. Ct. 766
• 40 L. Ed. 903
• 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2196

Syllabus

<p>The Central Pacific Railroad Company, being required by the laws of California to make returns of its property to the Board of Equalization for purposes of taxation, made a verified statement in which, among other things, it was said: “The value of the franchise and-entire roadway, roadbed, and rails within this State is $12,273,785.” The Board of Equalization determined that the actual value of the franchises, roadway, roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of the company within the State at that time was $18,000,000. The company not having paid the taxes assessed on this valuation, this action was brought by the State to recover them. Held,</p> <p>'(1) That the presumption was that the franchise included by the company in its return was a franchise which was not exempt under the laws of the United States, and that the board had acted upon, property within its jurisdiction;</p> <p>(2) That if the Board of Equalization had included what it had no authority to assess, the company might seek the remedies given under the law, to correct the assessment so far as such property was concerned, or recover back the tax thereon, or, if those remedies were not held exclusive, might defend against the attempt to enforce it;</p> <p>(3) Where the property mentioned in the description could be assessed, and the assessment followed the return, the company ought to be held estopped from saying that the description was ambiguous, and this notwithstanding the fact that the statement was made on printed blanks, prepared by the board.</p> <p>The decision of the Supreme Court of the State that the findings of the trial court on the question of whether the franchises taxed covered • franchises derived from the United States was conclusive, and is binding on this court.</p> <p>The fact that a court, after giving its decision upon an issue, gives its opinion upon the manner in which it would have decided the issue under other circumstances, does not constitute an error to be reviewed in this