OCR Text |
Show 'Miin.iU .loiiKUil i.s capaMo of idrnlifi e;ittn. The t 011 r l ivtVi.H to th.' f:t't 1 hat irri .1 1 in n 00 in 1 'Jin ics ii I' Inh havo t lie 1 ili t of i1 mi 1 11 1' 1 1 1 domain. "The ('on.Nl.il iu ional provision, says t lie decision, " reum rinn" all propn t v to he onitallv and unii'ormlv nssesseii, of necessity would compel tlie taxaiiun of this iiiilei;e or power in the hands of irrigation roinpanie-t or water usso ciations, hased upon its lu'tunl value, in the same manner as the viejit en ioyed by col porat ions enaed in the business of the plain t i f f eompan y. "hi my judgment, to liold tliat it was the intent of the makers of the const it 11 1 ion to sub jer t t lie naked ri ejit of eminent do ma in by trrie,at ion com paiiir's or water associations to taxation would bo to run contrary to the entire history of all previous legislation in the territory of I'tah, as well as hcinu inimical to the best nit crest j of the people of the state. "I am therefore clearly of the opinion opin-ion that it was not the intention of the framers of the constitution, or of the constitution itself, that the naked ri-lit or power to invoke the riht of dominion domin-ion of priaie properly for a puMic use should le subject to taxation." The decision was written by Justice Valentino tiideon, and all his associates in the supreme court concur. INTANGIBLE ASSETS v SUIT LD3TBY TOOELE Supreme Court Refuses to Allow FranchiseM to Be Taxed. Right to Charter Held Net to Be Thing With Cash Market Value. V. n'o r t of the taxing authorities 0 1' Tooele county to plaeo n valuation ot' $30,000 on intaneiM0 assets of the International In-ternational Smelting company at Tooele, under the heading of ' ' franchise,'' fran-chise,'' failed ly dooion of the supreme su-preme court yes'. erday. The supreme court upheld the decision of the district court. The suit was brought when the county coun-ty attempted to collect $750 as tuxes on this item in UM7. The company paid the tax under protest, and took the f matter into the courts. James T. Hammond, member of the state board of equalisation, represented Tooele county in this ense. A stipulated statement of facts was submitted fT the supremo court bv the parties in the case These showed that ,the assessment had been regularly made ' and had been protested in due form; that the smelting company was a Mon-tinu Mon-tinu corporation, and had complied with the I'tah laws both as to aoini: business in the state and as to acquiring ac-quiring the riyht of eminent domain, as provided for in the I'tah statutes. It had not, however, according to the stipulation, exercised this r i h t of eminent em-inent domain. Tooele Claims Right. Tho county contended that this rijcht is, nevertheless, such a franchise as is taxable under the constitution and laws of Utah. ' It also contended that the place to tax such a franchise was in Tooele county, where the rilu Would 1 be exercised, if at ail. 1 It was the company's contention that the mere richt or power of eminent emi-nent domain is not a franchise subject to taxation, but that, if it were held to be such a right, it should be taxed not in Tooele county, but at. the principal place of business of the company in Utah, Salt Lake county. "The supreme court pointed out that it has already held that the "right to be" that is, to hold a charter from the state to exist as a corporation and to conduct any business, of whatever nature, na-ture, can not be taxed in Utah. This question has been up before iu the I'ra'a courts, and has been ruled on. The court in the former case held ''that the franchise "to exist as a corporation is not subieet to taxation and is not such a franchise as was contemplated by the framors of the constitution.'7 The supreme court arpues that in this case the franchise is not a thing with a cash market value. It could not bo transferred or sold as other property. lIt exists only by virtue of the. nature of the particular business engaged in by such corporation. It cannot be mortgaged or sold under execution." Cites Irrigation Cases. j The supreme court comment s 1 hat whatever property is acquired by a company in the exercise of the right of |