These cases do not differ materially from the one just decided,
(
ante, page
180 U. S. 1), except
as to the year for which the taxes were assessed.
This was an action against the Yazoo Company and the Illinois
Central Company for state, county, municipal, and privilege taxes
for the year 1898, upon the property of the Louisville, New Orleans
and Texas Company, which became the property of the Yazoo Company
by virtue of the consolidation of October 24, 1892, and has since
been operated by the defendants.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case does not differ materially from the one just decided
except as to the year for which the taxes were assessed. A joint
plea was filed by the defendants setting up a claim to exemption
under the charter of the former Louisville Company, which for
twenty-five years from March 3, 1882, appropriated all taxes to its
construction debts, with a proviso that this appropriation should
cease when the profits were sufficient to enable it to declare and
pay an annual dividend of eight per cent upon the capital stock,
over and above the payment of its debts and liabilities. But this
plea did not allege that the railroad was built under this charter,
nor that the profits had not been
Page 180 U. S. 27
sufficient to pay the dividends; and a demurrer was interposed
for these reasons, which was sustained by the court.
Defendants then, under leave to answer over, filed two pleas, of
which the first, called the amended or second plea, rectified the
two foregoing omissions and set up that this exemption was an
irrepealable contract of appropriation of the taxes, and protected
by the contract clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The third plea set up the record and decision in
Railroad
Company v. Lambert, 70 Miss. 779, as
res judicata,
and alleged that the contrary decision of June 20, 1898, in the
case of
Adams v. Yazoo Company was violative of the
contract clause. Then followed a maze of replications, rejoinders,
and demurrers into which it would be wholly unprofitable to enter.
Suffice it to say that from this "labyrinth of special pleadings,"
as it was termed by the supreme court (77 Miss. 780), three
questions were evolved:
First. Whether the provisions of section 21 of the charter of
the Mobile and Northwestern Company constituted a valid and
irrepealable contract between the state and the railroad company
under the Mississippi Constitution of 1869.
Second. Whether, conceding its validity, the consolidation of
1892 operated to terminate this contract.
Third. Whether the decision in the
Lambert case
operated as an estoppel against the prosecution of this action.
It is sufficient to say of the third question that it is not
federal in its character. What weight shall be given as an estoppel
to a prior judgment of the same court is not a matter which can be
reviewed here. We do not understand this point to be pressed.
The second question we have already disposed of in the main
case. The immunity from taxation contained in the charters of the
constituent companies did not inure to the new company formed by
the consolidation of 1892.
In the view we have taken of the second question, the first
becomes immaterial, as we have held in the prior case.
It is stipulated that another case (No. 356) brought against
these companies for the taxes of 1898 upon the property of the
Natchez, Jackson, and Columbus division of the Louisville
Company,
Page 180 U. S. 28
now owned and operated by the Yazoo Company, shall abide the
result of this.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in these cases
is therefore
Affirmed.