
51 U.S. 376 (____)
10 How. 376
THE PHILADELPHIA AND WILMINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Supreme Court of United States.

*388 The cause was argued by Mr. Meredith, for the defendant *389 in error, and submitted on printed points by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, for the plaintiff in error.
*391 Mr. Johnson, for the plaintiff in error.
*392 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error is a corporation composed of several railroad companies which had been previously chartered by the States of Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania; and which, by corresponding laws of the respective States, were united together, and form one corporation under the name and style of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company. The road of this corporation extends from Philadelphia to Baltimore.
One of the companies which now forms a part of this corporation was originally the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Company, and was chartered by Maryland by an act passed in 1831, chap. 288. The road constructed by this company extended from Baltimore to the Susquehanna, lying altogether on the west side of the river.
The Delaware and Maryland Railroad Company was another of the original corporations, and was also chartered by Maryland by the act of 1831, chap. 296. It extended from the Delaware line to the Susquehanna, and lies on the east side of the river. This company was afterwards, by the act of 1835, chap. 93, and a corresponding law passed by the State of Delaware, united with the Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad Company, which had been previously chartered by Delaware; the two companies when united taking the corporate name of the latter.
Afterwards, by an act of Assembly of Maryland, of 1837, chap. 30, and corresponding laws passed by Delaware and Pennsylvania, the last-mentioned company, together with the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Company, was authorized to unite with the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company, which had been previously chartered in the States where it was situated; and these united companies were incorporated into one, under the name and style of the last-mentioned company, and the corporation thus formed is the plaintiff in error.
In 1841, since the union of these companies, an act of Assembly of Maryland was passed, imposing a tax for State purposes upon the real and personal property in the State. Under this law, the portion of the road which belonged to the Baltimore and Port Deposit road, before the union last above mentioned, has been assessed as a part of the taxable property in the State, in the manner set forth in the schedule contained in the record. It is admitted that it has been assessed at the *393 same rate with that of individuals, and as prescribed by the law.
The question submitted to this court is, whether this property of the plaintiff in error is liable to be so taxed, under the grants contained in the different charters above referred to.
The charter of the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad declared that the property in this road when constructed should be vested in the company, and that the shares of the company should be deemed and considered as personal property. But there is no provision in the law exempting its stocks or its property, real or personal, from taxation. And certainly there is no reason why the property of a corporation should be presumed to be exempted, or should not bear its share of the necessary public burdens, as well as the property of individuals. This court on several occasions has held, that the taxing power of a State is never presumed to be relinquished, unless the intention to relinquish is declared in clear and unambiguous terms. In the act incorporating this company, there is nothing from which such an inference could possibly be drawn; and, standing upon this charter alone, the tax was without doubt lawfully imposed.
Neither can such an inference be drawn from any thing contained in the subsequent law by which this company became finally consolidated with the plaintiff in error. It remained a separate corporation, without any alteration in its charter in this respect, until the union was formed by the act of 1837. It was situated altogether in the State of Maryland. The Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad Company was partly in Maryland and partly in Delaware, and owed its existence to a separate charter. And the law which authorizes these two companies to unite themselves with the plaintiff in error declares that this new corporation, that is, the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company, shall be entitled within this State to all the powers and privileges and advantages at that time belonging to these two companies. It grants it nothing more.
Now, as these companies held their corporate privileges under different charters, the evident meaning of this provision is, that whatever privileges and advantages either of them possessed should in like manner be held and possessed by the new company, to the extent of the road they had respectively occupied before the union; that it should stand in their place, and possess the power, rights, and privileges they had severally enjoyed in the portions of the road which had previously belonged to them. And this intention is made still more evident by the fourth section of the law, which makes the new corporation *394 responsible for the contracts, debts, obligations, engagements, and liabilities at law or in equity of the several companies, and declares that it shall hold and be entitled to all the estate, real, personal, and mixed, choses in action, &c., belonging to or due to the several companies. The plaintiff in error, therefore, took the property of the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Company with all the liabilities to which it was subject in the hands of that company.
The act which incorporated the Delaware and Maryland Railroad provided that the shares in that company should be deemed and considered personal estate, and should be exempt from any tax or burden, "except upon that portion of the permanent and fixed works which might be in the State of Maryland." And the law of 1835, which authorized the union of this company with the Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad Company, secured to the united company the property, rights, and privileges which that law or other laws conferred on them or either of them. The original exemption, therefore, of the Delaware and Maryland Railroad Company, as far as it went, was extended to the Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad Company, and has been continued to the plaintiffs in error. But as the right of taxation on that part of the road is not in question in this suit, we forbear to express an opinion upon it. For if this restriction could be supposed to exempt from taxation the description of property enumerated in the schedule, or any part of it, it could not affect the question before us. The provisions of this charter have never been extended to the portion of the road on the west side of the river, which was constructed under the charter of the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad. As that company held it, so it is now held by the plaintiff in error, with the same privileges, powers, and liabilities. And as the property assessed was liable to taxation in the hands of the original corporation, it is equally liable in the hands of the company with which it is now consolidated.
The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the Western Shore of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum.
