Anniston City Land Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 18 February 1909
• Citation: 48 So. 659,160 Ala. 253
• Parties: ANNISTON CITY LAND CO. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

48 So. 659

160 Ala. 253

ANNISTON CITY LAND CO. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 18, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; John Pelham, Judge.

Proceedings for the assessment of back taxes against certain land belonging to the Anniston City Land Company. From a judgment subjecting the land to taxation, the land company appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Blackwell & Agee, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen and W. P. Acker, for the State.

DENSON J.

On October 4, 1906, the commissioners' court of Calhoun county fixed the value of certain property of the Anniston City Land Company for taxation as follows: Block 145, known as the "Anniston Inn Block," with buildings thereon, at $25,000, for each of the years 1903 to 1906 inclusive. Furniture at $1,000, for each of the years 1903 to 1906, inclusive. Lot 14, in block 22, with the building thereon, known as the "Sixteenth Street School," at $750, for each of the years 1902 to 1906, inclusive. From this assessment and valuation the land company appealed to the circuit court (Code 1896, § 3979; Code 1907, § 2148), and from the judgment in that court rendered against it this appeal has been taken.

It was agreed in the circuit court that the values of the property were, for the periods embraced in the assessment, as stated above. It was also agreed that the assessment of said property as an escape and for the year 1906 was in due form and that the only questions involved on the appeal in the circuit court were: First, whether said property, or any part thereof, was exempt from taxation; second, if the property was not exempt, had the taxes been paid for all, or certain of said years? The evidence in the circuit court showed that block 145, for each of said years 1903 to 1906, inclusive, had been assessed as follows: "Block 145, that part not exempt, $1,000." It was also shown that lot 14, in block 22, had been listed for the years 1901 to 1906, inclusive, as follows: "Block 22, lot 14, exempt."

The appellant was the owner of all of said property during said years, and is yet the owner thereof. The testimony showed that for each of the years 1901 to 1906, inclusive, block 145 and the building thereon, known as the "Anniston Inn," in the city of Anniston, had been leased by the appellant to Dr. Owens and others for school purposes; that therein was conducted a boarding school for young ladies, which use had obtained during each of said years, and that in conjunction with the boarding school there was a day school; that such school was known as "Anniston College for Young Ladies," and was open from the early fall until late in the spring, as was usual and customary with schools in that section of the country. It was also shown that said property was not used for any other than school purposes; that the inn itself covered one acre of land, and that the whole block upon which it was located contained four acres; that the building on lot 14, block 22, was built about 15 years ago, was adapted to school purposes, had never been used for any other purpose, occupied land in area less than one acre, and, during the years 1901 to 1906, inclusive, had been leased by the appellant to the city of Anniston for a public school building. The testimony also showed that said leases were for a substantial money consideration and that the appellant had no interest in the schools.

Was the property subject to taxation, or, to put it differently, was the property, or any part thereof, on account of the use to which it was put by the lessees, exempt from taxation? The "universal rule of construction is that exemptions from taxation, whether statutory or constitutional, are to be strictly construed, against the exemption and in favor of the right to tax, and that no person or property is to be exempted unless the intention to exempt such person or property clearly appears in some statute or constitutional provision. The relinquishment or curtailment of the power of taxation is never presumed." Gray, Lim. of Taxing Power, p. 655, § 1321, and cases cited in note 53 to the text, among them being that of Stein v. Mobile, 17 Ala. 234, 239. In the case last cited this court, through Dargan C.J., gave expression to the rule in this language: "The right of taxation is essential to the existence of all governments, * * * and it is never to be presumed that this right is abandoned or surrendered unless it clearly appears that such was the intention." 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) p. 356, and cases cited in note 2 to the text. "Most exemptions from taxation belong to classes which it has been the policy of the various states to exempt from the beginning. These customary exemptions all have some well-understood basis. It has been the policy of the country to encourage education in all its aspects, and property used for educational purposes is generally, within certain limitations, exempt." Gray, Lim. of Taxing Power, §§ 1324, 1325.

Exemption is here claimed by the owner of the property under section 91 of the Constitution of 1901, which is a rescript of section 52, art. 4, of the Constitution of 1875 with the last clause thereof eliminated. Section 91 is self-executing, and proprio vigore exempts from taxation lots in incorporated cities or towns, or within one mile of any city or town, to the extent of one acre, with the buildings thereon, "when the same are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable." The precise question here to be determined has never been adjudicated by this court; but fortunately the path before us is not an entirely untraveled one in other jurisdictions. The Constitution of the state of Kansas contains a provision in this language "All property used exclusively for state, * * * literary, educational, scientific, religious, benevolent, and charitable...