
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. WASHINGTON GASLIGHT COMPANY.
    Statutes; Taxation; Gross Earnings.
    This ease is governed by the decision of the Court in District of Columbia v. Georgetown Gaslight Co. (ante, 63).
    No. 2898.
    Submitted February 23, 1916.
    Decided April 10, 1916.
    Hearing on 'an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in an action to recover taxes alleged to have been paid under duress, the court having overruled a demurrer to the declaration and the defendant having elected to stand on its demurrer.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    This is an appeal from a judgment in thé supreme court of the District, entered for the Washington Gaslight Company, plaintiff below, against the District of Columbia for the sum of $31,321.62 and interest. The action was for the recovery of money alleged to have been illegally exacted by the District of Columbia from the company as part of a personal tax due by it for the year ending June 30, 1913, under the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which imposes an annual tax of 5 per cent on the gross earnings of gas companies in the District.
    The facts alleged in the amended declaration were practically the same as in the case of District of Columbia v. Georgetown 
      
      Gaslight Co. ante, 63, the preceding case. The appellant filed a demurrer to the declaration raising the same questions as in that case; the demurrer was overruled, and the appellant electing to stand upon its demurrer judgment was accordingly entered for the appellee company for $31,321.62, with interest, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
    
      Mr. Conrad H. Syme, Corporation Counsel, and Mr. Francis H. Stephens, Assistant, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Benj. S. Minor, Mr. J. J. Darlington, and Mr. Colley W. Bell for the appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Covington

of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with this Court in the hearing and determination of the appeal in the place of Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question presented by the record is precisely the same as in the case of District of Columbia v. Georgetown Gaslight Co. ante, 63, the preceding case, and for the reasons assigned in that case the judgment is affirmed, with costs above and below.  