Louisville Water Co. v. Hamilton
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 80 — REVENUE APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. County taxes can not be enforced against appellant — ■ 1. Because of the strictly public functions performed by the corporation. 2. Because the ivater-ivorks at Louisville must be regarded as an entirety, and therefore can not be levied upon and sold piecemeal. 3. Because there is a statutory exemption from the tax. 4. A water company that supplies a city is exempt from execution levy on any of its apparatus or plant…
Read the full summary
Case 80 — REVENUE APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. County taxes can not be enforced against appellant — ■ 1. Because of the strictly public functions performed by the corporation. 2. Because the ivater-ivorks at Louisville must be regarded as an entirety, and therefore can not be levied upon and sold piecemeal. 3. Because there is a statutory exemption from the tax. 4. A water company that supplies a city is exempt from execution levy on any of its apparatus or plant on the ground of public necessity and convenience. (Charter Louisville Water Co., act 6th March, 1854, see. 1; Charter…
1Opinion of the Court
JHDGE PBYOB
ebliveked the opinion op tub cotjbt.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Louisville chancery court, enjoining the collection of taxes by the sheriff, and to prevent the levy by him of an execution on appellant’s property. The Louisville Water Company is a corporation, the stock of which, or the greater part of it, is owned by the city of Louisville, and whose business it is to supply the inhabitants of the city with water. Taxes had been assessed against the property of this corporation for several years, and for some reason the company declined to make payment, and, when payment…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Clark v. Louisville Water Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- City of Covington v. District of HighlandsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- Hauns v. Central Kentucky Lunatic AsylumCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
- Preston v. Sturgis Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- Chapman Valve Manufacturing Co. v. Oconto Water Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.