MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company sought a refund of $6,200 paid as a franchise tax under protest for permission to issue bonds. The Supreme Court declared the fee unlawfully collected, and the court awarded the refund with interest.
Statutes cited: Hurd's Statutes, 1917, page 2288 (section 31 of Public Utilities Act)
Cases cited: Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. The Public Utilities Commission, 292 Ill. 427
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- FRANCHISE TAX-foreign corporations. When entitled to recover franchise tax paid. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. The Public Utilities Commission, 292 Ill. 427, the facts herein being stated, the claimant is entitled to recover from the State the amount of franchise tax paid with interest.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed January 19, 1921.
FRANCHISE TAX-foreign corporations. When entitled to recover franchise tax paid. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. The Public Utilities Commission, 292 Ill. 427, the facts herein being stated, the claimant is entitled to recover from the State the amount of franchise tax paid with interest.
Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.
This is a claim by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a foreign corporation, to recover from the State of Illinois, sixty-two hundred dollars ($6,200.00) paid as a fee or franchise tax for permission from the Public Utilities Commission to issue $6,200,000.00 of bonds of its railway company, under section 31 of the Public Utilities Act (Hurd's Statutes, 1917, page 2288).
The permission to issue said bonds was granted on condition that claimant pay to the State Treasury the sum of $6,200.00. Claimant paid said amount under protest in order to receive the authority from said Commission, and then appealed from that part of the order of the Commission requiring it to pay said fee, to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, which sustained the Commission, and claimant then appealed to the Supreme Court of this State, which reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and the Commission, in an opinion rendered on April 21st, 1920, in which opinion it declares that said fee was unlawfully collected and declares said Section 31 void when applied to a foreign corporation.
The Attorney General has entered his appearance admitting the liability of the State for said amount of $6,200.00, and under the decision of the Supreme Court in said case, it is clear that claimant is entitled to a refund of said sum of $6,200.00 with interest from March 19, 1919.
Claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $6,200.00 with interest thereon at five per cent per annum, from March 19, 1919, to date of payment.