Yazoo & M. v. 2. co. v. BOARD or LEVER 0ou’Rs. 29
provision in the act that, after the exemption expires, the property may
be taxed at the same rate imposed on other property in the state, is the
exclusion of any taxation until that time, and that the exemption com-
menced with the approval of the act, not to extend beyond 25 years, and
not longer than 20 years from the completion of the railroad to the Mis-
sissippi river. The only decision of the supreme court of the United
States on this point to which I have been referred is the case of Railroad
Oo. v. Demis, 116 U. S. 665, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. In that case the ex-
emption was for 10 years after the completion of the railroad within the
state. Five of the judges held that the exemption commenced only from
the completion of the road, while four of them held that it commenced
from the passage of the act of incorporation. W'hile this division in opin-
ion would certainly very much weaken the force of a decision, if merely
persuasive upon this court, yet, it being the judgment of the supreme.
court, it would not be safe to depart from it by a court bound by its de-
cisions, as is this court. The learned counsel for the complainant argue
that this case is not applicable to the case under consideration, and to
sustain this position endeavor in this case to draw a distinction between
the words “for ten years after" the completion of the road, and "twenty
years from " the completion ofthe road. Though the distinction asked
to be drawn is plausible, I am unable to adopt it. Had the language
been "until twenty years after the road shall be completed tothe Missis-
sippi river, but not to continue more than twenty-five years after the ap-
proval of this act," there would have been no doubt about the exemp-
tion beginning with the approval of the act., It was doubtless under-
stood, both bythe legislature and the incorporators, that the road would
beobuilt to the Mississippi river as soon as practicable, and, if it was so
built, that during its construction it and the property connectedfwith
it would have been exempt from taxation under the provision of section
608, Code 1880, which applies to all railroads during their construction.
So I concludethat the exemption under the charter will not commence
. until the completion of the road to the Mississippi river, but that any
portion of it not completed and not operated for profit is exempt under
the provisions of the Code of 1880. It is pressed in argument by com-
e plainant’s counsel that, if this be held to apply to this road, that it de-
prives it of the exemption granted other railroad companies by the same
legislature, which gave 20 years’ exemption from the passage of the acts
chartering them. The answer to this argument is that it was not so pro-
vided in the charter, and that the failure to obtain the exemption pro-
vided for has arisen from the failure of the complainant to comply with
its part of the contract in building the road to the Mississippi river, and
hereby securing to the state and the public to be benefited the benefits
constituting the consideration for the exemption. If the purpose is still
to carry out the enterprise as was contemplated when the charter was
granted, the exemption can be obtained in a reasonably short time by
continuing the road to the Mississippi river, which, during its construc-
tion, will.be' exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Code.
But theexemption provided inthe charter did extend the exemption