Alexander v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 13 March 1893
• Citation: 70 Miss. 517,12 So. 708
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: J. ALEXANDER, TAX COLLECTOR OF GREENVILLE, v. G. D. THOMAS, RECEIVER

12 So. 708

70 Miss. 517

J. ALEXANDER, TAX COLLECTOR OF GREENVILLE, v. G. D. THOMAS, RECEIVER

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 13, 1893

FROM the chancery court of Washington county, HON. W. R. TRIGG Chancellor.

On May 1, 1891, the Bank of Greenville, domiciled in Washington county, by its president, W. A. Pollock, delivered to the assessor of the county a written statement, under oath, as follows:

"As required by chapter 2, acts of legislature of 1890, I submit the statement for this bank, to February 1, 1891:

No. shares capital stock paid in

--2,500 at $ 100 each

$ 250,000 00

Surplus and undivided profits, net

582 47

$ 250,582 47

For assessment--

Estimated value of shares 66 2/3

per cent. capital

stock, surplus and undivided profits

$ 250,582 47

Less, real estate

$ 5,000 00

Less 33 1/3 per cent. on par value

of stock

83,333 33--88,333 33

Amount for assessment

$ 162,249 14"

By this statement it will be seen that the capital stock, increased by surplus and undivided profits, amounted in value to $ 250,582.47, but by the latter part of the statement, the valuation "for assessment" was put down at two-thirds of this amount, or $ 162,249.14, and this latter amount was adopted by the board of supervisors as the valuation of the capital stock of the bank, and the county taxes were levied accordingly. This was done, it seems, upon the idea that the stock should be taxed at two-thirds of its value, because property generally was thus rated for taxation.

The assessor of the city of Greenville did not assess the capital stock of the bank in making up the city assessment-rolls. He reported to the council that the president of the bank had refused to make a statement, as required by the act of 1890 and had referred him to the statement which had been made to the county assessor, a copy of which was obtained by the city authorities. Thereupon, the capital stock of the bank was assessed for city taxation for $ 245,582.47. The bank through its president, objected to this assessment, claiming that the city was compelled to follow the assessment as made by the county, and that, as other property was not assessed for more than two-thirds of its real value, the capital stock of the bank should not be assessed at a greater sum. The president admitted before the council that the statement for the county assessor had been made as above shown because other property was taxed at only two-thirds its value. He was informed by the city authorities that if he would state that the capital stock of the bank was worth only two-thirds of its face value, the assessment would be made accordingly. This he declined to do, and withdrew the objection to the assessment.

Afterwards when the city proceeded to collect taxes, the bank tendered to the collector $ 425.81, the city taxes due upon the capital stock of the bank upon the two-thirds valuation. The city tax-collector refused to receive this amount in full whereupon the bill in this case was filed by the receiver of the bank--it having, in the meantime, failed--to enjoin him from collecting the excess. The bill was answered, and, afterwards, there was a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

J. H. Wynn, for appellant.

...