Majority
Headnote
1. Taxation (§ 145[1] )—“Special Franchise’ ’—Highway Crossings.The only question involved in this appeal is whether the right to cross the canal lands and the highway constitute a special franchise.
Subdivision 3 of section 2 of the Special Franchise Tax Law, so-called (Laws 1896, c. 908, as amended by Laws 1899, c. 712), authorizes the assessment for the purpose of taxation of all franchises, rights, or permission to construct, maintain, or operate a railroad in, under, above, on, or through streets, highways, or public places. Laws 1896, c. 908, § 2, subd. 4, as amended by Laws 1901, c. 490, provides that:
“The terms special franchise shall not be deemed to include the crossing of a street, highway or public place, where such crossing is not at the intersection of another street or highway, unless such crossing shall be at other than-right angles for a distance of not less than two hundred and fifty feet in which case the whole of such crossing shall be deemed a special franchise.”
In the endeavor to ascertain the intention of the Legislature, with respect to whether the term “special franchise” shall be deemed to include the right to construct, maintain; or operate a railroad on, across, or above two or more adjoining highways or public places at other than right angles for a distance of 250 feet, we need to go further than the statute itself. There was a provision in the statutory construction law (Laws 1892, c. 677, § 8) which is now incorporated in the general construction law (Laws 1909, c. 27, § 35 [Consol. Laws, c. 22]) that has a direct bearing upon this question. It reads as follows:
“Words in the singular number include the plural and in the plural number include the singular.”
If this rule is applied to this case, and the words “highways” and "public places” are read into and made a part of the statute in question, it is plain that the term “special franchise” must be deemed to include the crossing of any number of streets, highways, or public places adjoining each other, where the crossing is at other than right angles-for a distance not less than 250 feet. There can be no manner of doubt that this rule of statutory construction' applies to the statute under consideration. Section 1 of the statutory construction law
It may also be observed, in answer to the contention of the respond- • ent, that the right of the relator to construct and operate its" railroad across or above the highway was received from the “highway authorities” ; that there is no power in a town, village, or city to grant such a franchise. “That proposition was laid down in the case of Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611 [ 84 Am. Dec. 314 ], and it has ever since been recognized as the law of the State.” Beekman v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 279 , 43 N. Y. Supp. 174 . It was necessary • for the relator to obtain an order of the Supreme Court, before it could exercise the' right, but that conferred no franchise. That was only a condition prescribed by the Legislature that had to be complied with before the company could proceed to construct or operate its road. This franchise was granted by the people of the state and became perfect and complete the moment the corporation came into existence. Matter of Thirty-Fourth Street R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 343 , 7 N. E. 172 .
Our conclusion, therefore, is that the order appealed from should be reversed, and the assessment made by the State Board of Tax Commissioners modified by deducting 20 per cent, from the valuation of the special franchise to equalize the assessment with the assessment of the other real property in the town, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. All concur; COCHRANE, J., in result.
Cases cited
- Milhau v. Sharp 27 N. Y. 611 p. 730
- Beekman v. Third Avenue Railroad 13 App. Div. 279 p. 730
- In re Thirty-fourth Street Railroad 102 N. Y. 343 p. 730