II. <& K. E. CO. V. GAINBa. 267 �stmction which the state courts may give to such statutes subsequen» to the acquisition of such property rights. �Cases cited — Olcott v. Supervisera, 16 Wall. 678; Fine Qrove t. Toi cott, 19 Wall. 666. �5. Bame — Exemption from Taxation. — An exemption from taxation �cannot be implied from the apparent spirit or general purpose of a Btatute. It must be certain and explicit ; every well-founded doubt must be resolved in favor of the state. But this rule does not call for a strained construction, adverse to the real intention of the legis- lature ; and to ascertain that intention the court will look to the con- text, as "well as to the particular words used, taking into consideration the contemporaneous surroundings, and the purposes which the legis- lature had in view. �6. Same — Use of Samb Word ts Different Constitutions or Sta- �tutes. — The fact that the constitutson of a state uses a word (e. g., the Word "privilege") in one sense in one clause, is no evidence that it is used in the same sense in every other clause ; and, were it used in but one sense throughout the constitution, it would not follow that the legislature used it in the same sense in statutes subsequently passed. Even in the same statute a word is often used with distinctly different meanings, the courts giving to it in each instance the meaning which the legislature intended it to have in that particular connection. �7. Constitutionai, Law — Injunction — Taxes. — Where a state has, by �valid contract, exempted certain property from taxation, it cannot by subsequent legislation subject that property to taxation, hor prohibit the United States courts from using their injunctive powere to pro- tect the contract from violation. �8. Injunction — ^Taxbs.— While the general rule is that courts will not �çnjoin the collection of taxes upon the mere ground that they are excessive or illegal, yet if their exaction is unconstitutional, and the party assessed has no other adequate remedy, or their enforcement will occasion irremediable oppression and produce a multiplicity of expensive suits, an injunction to restrain their collection will be granted. �In Equity. �Ed. Baxte", for complainant. �B. J. Lea, Attorney General, for defendant. �Baxter, G. J. By the thirty-ninth section of the act of De- cember 11, 1845, incorporating the Nashville & Chattanooga Eailroad Company, it is provided "that the capital stock of said Company shall be forever exempt from taxation, and the road, with ail its fixtures and appurtenances, including work- shops, warehouses, and vehicles of transportation, shall be ex- ����
