
    Commonwealth v. Edison Electric Light and Power Company, Appellant.
    
      Taxation — Exemption —Manufacturing Corporations — Act of June 1, 1891.
    Under the proviso in the revenue act of June 1,1891, P. L. 288, exempting manufacturing corporations from the state tax on capital stock, a corporation engaged in producing electricity, and selling it to customers for the generation of light, heat or power, is not exempt from taxation upon its capital stock.
    Argued June 4, 1895.
    Appeal, No. 25, May Term, 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., September Term, 1894, No. 585, on verdict for plaintiff.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Appeal from tax settlement. Before McPherson, J.
    At the trial it appeared that the Edison Electric Power Company (of Erie) is a corporation chartered under the general corporation act of 1874 (P. L. 73), for the purpose, as expressed in its charter, of “ manufacturing electricity and supplying the same through appropriate conductors to the public for the purpose of light, heat and power, and supplying consumers with the necessary appliances for utilizing the same.”
    The defendant company claimed that it was exempt from taxation upon its capital stock under the proviso in the act of June 1,1891, P. L. 238, which is as follows:
    “ And provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to the taxation of the capital stock of corporations, limited partnerships and joint-stock associations, organized exclusively for manufacturing purposes and actually carrying on manufacturing within the state, excepting companies engaged in the brewing or distilling of spirits or malt liquors and such as enjoy and exercise the right of eminent domain.”
    The court directed a verdict for plaintiff subject to the question of law reserved whether the company was exempt from taxation. Subsequently in an opinion by McPherson, J., the court entered judgment upon the verdict in favor of the commonwealth.
    
      
      Error assigned was entry of judgment for commonwealth.
    
      M. E. Olmsted, George A. Allen and L. Rosenzweig with him, for appellant,
    cited: Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 353; Beggs v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 96 Ala. 295; People v. Wemple, 117 N. Y. 136.
    
      John P. Elkin, deputjr attorney general, Henry O. McCormick, attorney general, with him, for appellee,
    cited: Com. v. Edison Electric Light Co., 145 Pa. 131.
    July 18, 1895:
   Per Curiam,

The question in this case is substantially the same as that in Commonwealth v. Northern Electric Light and Power Company, reported in 145 Pa. 105. For reasons given in that case the judgment in this case should not be disturbed. We find nothing in the record that requires special notice. 0

Judgment affirmed.  