That a franchise may be taxed as a piece of property, and that, in estimating the value of this property, the value of the goodwill of the company may be included, is clearly established in Adams Express Co. v. Ohio.65

64 People v. Roberts, 154 N. Y. 101; 159 N. Y. 70.

65 106 U. S. 185; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604; 41 L. ed. 965.

"In the complex civilization of to-day a large portion of the wealth of a community consists in intangible property, and there is nothing in the nature of things or in the limitations of the federal Constitution which restrains a State from taxing at its real value such intangible property. ... It matters not in what this intangible property consists, - whether privileges, corporate franchises, contracts, or obligations. It is enough that it is property which, though intangible, exists, which has value, produces income, and passes current in the markets of the world. To ignore this intangible property, or to hold that it is not subject to taxation at its accepted value, is to eliminate from the reach of the taxing power a large portion of the wealth of the country."

In State Railroad Tax Cases (92 U. S. 575, 603; 23 L. ed. 663, 669), is this language by Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court:

"That the franchise, capital stock, business, and profits of all corporations are liable to taxation in the place where they do business, and by the State which creates them, admits of no dispute at this day. 'Nothing can be more certain in legal decisions,' says this court in Society for Savings v. Coite (6 Wall. 607; 18 L. ed. 903), 'than that the privileges and franchises of a private In New York ex rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. Tax Commissioners'66 it was held that a tax levied specially upon the franchise of the company as a piece of property of value was not a double tax, because a lump sum had been paid at the time the franchise was granted, and an annual payment of a fixed amount or fixed percentage of earnings, such payments not having been specifically declared to be in lieu of taxes. The fact that for many years the State had not attempted to levy such a special franchise tax was held not to be an estoppel upon the State.