An exemption from taxation by the State does not exempt the corporation from taxation for county purposes. Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cass, 53

Mo. 17.

An exemption from State and county taxes does not relieve the corporation from taxes imposed upon its property by a city for municipal purposes. City v. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. 39 Mo. 476.

If the charter merely exempts the corporation from State and county taxes, the corporation will be liable to a school tax. Livingston v. Han, & St. Jo. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 516.

So long as a corporation uses its property for the purposes for which it was organized, it is entitled to the right of exemption from taxation under its charter. Washington University v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 439; S. C. 42 Mo. 308.

An exemption of the property of a corporation includes all which is obviously appropriate and convenient to carry into effect the franchise granted. State v. Hancock, 35 N. J. 537; S. C. 33 N. J. 315; State v. Woodruff, 36 N. J. 94.

The exemption is limited to such acquisitions as are incident to the existence of the corporation, to its objects and its uses, and are expedient and necessary for the full enjoyment of its franchises. State v. Newark, 26 N. J. 519; S. C. 25 N. J. 315; State v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co. 54 Geo. 423; State v. Mansfield, 23 N. J. 510; State v. Haight, 25 N. J. 40; Vermont C. R. R. Co. v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 193; State v. Flavell, 24 N. J. 370;. State v. Powers, 24 N. J. 400; State v. Blundell, 24 N. J. 402; State v. Collector, 26 N. J. 519; State v. Collector, 38 N. J. 270; Cook v. State, 33 N. J. 474.

If a charter contains an exemption, the corporation may yield a part of the exemption and accept other terms in lieu thereof, without surrendering the whole. State v. Commissioners, 37 N. J. 240.

A provision exempting the property of a corporation from taxation, exempts the real and personal estate required for the successful prosecution of its business. Wilmington Railroad Co. v. Reed, 13 Wall. 264.

A contract not to tax a railroad company or its property, is broken by the levy of a tax upon its gross receipts for the transportation of freight and passengers. Pacific Railroad v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 36; s. c. 51 Mo. 142.

If the charter is renewed without a renewal of the exemption from taxation, the power to tax is revived. State v. Bank, 2 Houst. 99.

A contract exempting the franchise from taxation, will not exempt the stockholders from taxation on account of their stock. A franchise is re

cognized as property. The capital attached to the franchise is another property, owned in its parts by persons corporate or natural, for which they are liable to be taxed, as they are for all other property. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133; S. c. 5 Gill, 231.

The bonds of a corporation are liable to taxation, although the corporation is exempt. State v. Branin, 23 N. J. 484.

If the corporation is exempt from taxation, the State can not tax the shares of the stockholders. State v. Branin, 23 N. J. 484; State v. Powers, 24 N. J. 400; State v. Bentley, 23 N. J. 532.

If the charter exempts the stock from liability to taxation, the State can not levy a tax upon the property held by the corporation. Ordinary v. Central R. R. Co. 40 Geo. 646; New Haven v. City Bank, 31 Conn. 106; Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 117.

The exemption of the capital stock of a bank from any greater impost than that which is specified in its charter, does not exonerate the dividends of the stockholders from such taxes as the legislature from time to time may think proper to impose. State v. Petway, 2 Jones Eq. 396.

A provision that a bank shall be exempt from further taxation, exempts the stockholders from taxation on account of the stock which they own in the bank. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133; S. C. 5 Gill, 231.

If the charter makes a distinction between capital stock and property, a tax may be laid on the property although the capital stock is exempt. St. Louis I. M. & S. R. R. Co. 30 Ark. 693.

If the charter merely exempts the capital, the property of the corporation is liable to taxation. Municipality v. Commercial Bank, 5 Rob. (La.) 151.

A provision exempting the property of a corporation from taxation, exempts its franchise. Wilmington Railroad Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264.

If a statute allowing a corporation to unite with others, creates a new corporation, the exemption from taxation contained therein may be repealed, if the State Constitution then in force made all charters repealable, although the old charter could not have been repealed. State v. Northern Central R. R. Co. 44 Md. 131.

An exemption from taxation exempts the corporation from assessments for damages and expenses in opening streets, where they are assessed without regard to benefits. State v. Newark, 27 N. J. 185.

If the charter exempts the corporation from all taxes and assessments whatever, the corporation is not liable for assessments for grading streets. St. Paul & Pac. R. R. Co. v. St. Paul, 21 Minn. 526.

A provision exempting the corporation from taxation, applies to its property as well as its franchises. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. v. Com

missioners, 18 N. J. 71.

A mere provision in the charter of a passenger railway company, for the payment of a certain license fee for each car, does not prevent the legislature from imposing a higher license fee. Union Passenger Railway Co. v. Philadelphia, 34 Leg. Int. 330.

An exemption in a charter from all taxation is an exemption from a privilege tax. Grand Gulf & P. B. R. Co. v. Buck, 53 Miss. 246.

If the land is exempt, the buildings erected on it are also exempt. Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 335.

Where the exemption is from taxes and assessments, the words must be taken to refer to the ordinary public taxes and assessments, and do not exempt the corporation from an assessment of benefits for opening a street. State Home Society v. Mayor, 35 N. J. 157; City v. Society, 24 N. J. 385; Mayor v. Proprietors, 7 Md. 517; Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155.

The payment of taxes for twenty years will not prevent the owner from claiming the exemption. Landon v. Litchfield, 11 Conn. 251.

When two corporations are consolidated into one, an exemption from taxation contained in the charter of one of such corporations, will not, by such consolidation, be extended to the property of the other whose charter contained no such exemption. Phil. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. State, 10 How. 376; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460; Del. Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206; Evansville H. & N. R. R. Co. v. Comm. 9 Bush, 438.

If the charter exempts the shares of the capital stock from taxation, an act imposing a tax on the franchise or property of the corporation is invalid. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Chacklett, 30 Mo. 550; State v. Han. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. 37 Mo. 265; Mayor v. Balt. & O. R. R. Co. 6 Gill, 288; Nichols v. N. H. & N. Co. 42 Conn. 103.

If the stock is exempt from taxation, no tax can be levied on a branch road which the corporation was authorized to construct by an amendment of its charter. A. & G. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637.

If a bank, in consideration of the payment annually of a certain sum Xupon its capital stock, purchase from the State the privilege of employing it in banking operations, a law which imposes in addition thereto an annual tax on the same capital thus employed, does impair the obligation of the contract. Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. 490.

If a statute grants land to a corporation to hold forever, with power to

lease and to collect a sum in addition to the rent equal to the tax imposed by the State, and provides that the land shall forever be exempt from taxation, this privilege will not pass to a purchaser whose purchase is made under a subsequent statute authorizing a sale, and virtually repealing the first statute. Armstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Pet. 281; S. C. 10 Ohio, 235.

If the lessee of land which is exempt from taxation, covenants to pay such taxes as may be imposed thereon, he can not allege the unconstitutionality of an act imposing a tax. Hart v. Cornwall, 14 Conn. 228.

If the land is exempt from taxation, it will be exempt in the hands of a lessee. Hardy v. Waltham, 24 Mass. 108; Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 335; Landon v. Litchfield, 11 Conn. 251; Matheny v. Golden, 5 Ohio St. 361; Kumler v. Traber, 5 Ohio St. 442.

If the lessee of a railroad agrees to pay all taxes assessed upon the property of the corporation, a tax on him in respect of his profits and earnings by the transportation of passengers and property, does not infringe a provision in the charter, exempting the corporation from taxation. State v. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co. 30 N. J. 473; S. C. 31 N. J. 531.

If, by terms of the lease, the buildings are not considered as a part of the lands, and an interest in them is created entirely distinct from an interest in the lands, the buildings may be taxed although the land is exempt. Parker v. Redfield, 10 Conn. 490.

If the charter of a library corporation authorizes it to build and rent a library building, and exempts its property from taxation, the parts which are leased as stores are exempt. State v. Leester, 29 N. J. 541.

If the State makes the immunity from taxation transferable, it can not tax the property in the hands of a purchaser. St. Paul & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297; State v. Winona & St. Paul R. R. Co. 21 Minn. 315; A. & G. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637.

If the charter merely exempts the corporation and its property from taxation, the exemption does not pass to a party who purchases the property at a sale under a mortgage or execution. Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217; Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391.

Eminent Domain.

A grant is always understood to be made subject to those reserved rights in the State, which are indispensable to State sovereignty. These reserved rights of sovereignty, which are denominated the right of eminent domain, always exist as a condition or implied reservation in all grants. Hence, the legislature may take the benefit of the grant of a corporate franchise from the grantee for public use. Armington v. Barnet, 15 Vt. 745; Enfield Bridge Co. v. Railroad, 17 Conn. 40; Piscataqua Bridge Co.

v. N. H. Bridge Co. 7 N. H. 35; Boston Water Power Co. v. Railroad, 40 Mass. 360; Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 398; James River Co. v. Thompson, 3 Gratt 270; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507; S. C. 16 Vt. 446; Richmond R. R. Co. v. Louisa R. R. Co. 13 How. 71; Newcastle R. R. Co. v. Peru & Ind. R. R. Co. 3 Ind. 464; Shorter v. Smith, 9 Geo. 517; Boston & L. R. R. Co. v Salem & L. R. R Co. 68 Mass. 1; Northern Railroad v. Concord Railroad, 27 N. H. 183; Central Bridge v. Lowell, 70 Mass. 474; Red River Bridge Co. v. Clarksville, 1 Sneed, 176; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404.

The tenure by which a corporation holds its property, forms no part of that which is of the essence of its charter. There is, therefore, nothing in the charter which can be so construed as to prevent the taking of the property for public uses. Ala. & Fla. R. R. Co. v. Kenney, 39 Ala. 307; Bellona Company's Case, 3 Bland, 442; Backus v. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19; Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co. 10 G. & J. 392; Boston Water Power Co. v. Railroad, 40 Mass. 360; Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Railroad, 11 Leigh, 42; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404; In re Kerr, 42 Barb. 119; White River Turnpike Co. v. Railroad Co. 21 Vt. 590.

The reservation of a right to resume the charter at the end of a certain period, upon certain terms, does not prevent the legislature from exercising the authority of eminent domain, by taking a part of the property of the corporation. Backus v. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19; Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 398.

The legislature may authorize the laying out of a common public highway over a road made by a turnpike corporation, although the charter is still in good force, provided compensation is made to the corporation for the property thus taken for public use. Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 398; Pierce v. Somersworth, 10 N. H. 369; Armington v. Barnet, 15 Vt. 745.

A statute which impairs a right under a charter, is unconstitutional unless it provides a legal indemnity. Enfield Bridge Co. v. Connecticut River Co. 7 Conn. 28.

Police Power.

As to their general liability to legislative control, corporations and natural persons stand upon the same ground. The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collected and changing body of men. Any privileges which may exempt it from the burdens common to individuals, do not flow necessarily from the charter, but must be expressed in it or they do not exist. Thorpe v. B. & P. R. R. Co. 27 Vt. 140; Peters v. Railroad Co. 23 Mo. 107; Bank v. Hamilton, 21 Ill. 53.