Ashe Carson Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1903 |
| Citation | 35 So. 38,138 Ala. 108 |
| Parties | ASHE CARSON CO. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; John P. Hubbard, Judge.
Action by the state against the Ashe Carson Company to recover taxes. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
The proceedings in this case were had under the back tax commission law, whereby it was sought to subject to taxation the leasehold estate of appellant in 9,138 acres of land; the timber on said land having been leased by the appellant for turpentine purposes, and the proceeding originated in the commissioner's court of Covington county, and the cause being decided adversely to the state, an appeal was taken to the circuit court where the cause was tried. The facts of the case necessary for an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. From a judgment in favor of the state the present appeal is prosecuted; and the appellant assigned as error the giving of the general affirmative charge requested by the state, and the refusal of the court to give the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant.
Powell & Albritton and C. E. Hamilton, for appellant.
Mossey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
As stated by the appellant's counsel in brief, the main proposition in this case is, whether the interest acquired by appellant under the lease from the Bonifays was such a separate and special interest in land as would make appellant liable for taxes on the same under subdivision 1 of section 3911 of the Code of 1896, which provides that "Every separate or special interest in any land, such as mineral timber, or other interest, when such interest is owned by a person other than the owner of the surface or soil," is subject to taxation.
The defendant below, appellant here, on the 18th December, 1900 leased from R. A. and R. H. Bonifay, for turpentine purposes all the pine timber fit for such purposes, on 9,130 acres of pine lands,--which lease was to terminate on the 1st of January, 1911,--whereby defendant had the right to enter upon said lands, when and as they wished, and box, for obtaining turpentine, pine trees thereon, measuring 10 inches in diameter at the butt, with the right and privilege of constructing and maintaining all rights of way, dirt roads tram roads and railroads upon said lands necessary for the proper manufacture, selling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixie Coaches, Inc. v. Ramsden
... ... THOMAS, ... The ... decision in this case affects the State's revenue and ... hence falls within the class of preferred cases ... The ... petition ... 407, 73 So. 5; ... Yarbrough Bros. Hardware Co. v. Phillips, 209 Ala ... 341, 96 So. 414; Ashe Carson Co. v. State, 138 Ala ... 108, 35 So. 38; Kennedy Stave & Cooperage Co. v ... ...
-
Ken Realty Co. v. State
... ... assessments to tax turpentine, mineral and other rights ... granted by leases, since such rights had been held to be ... nontaxable. Ashe Carson Co. v. State, 138 Ala. 108, ... 35 So. 38; State v. Roden Coal Co., 197 Ala. 407, 73 ... So. 5. It is argued that there would have been no ... ...
-
Hancock County v. Imperial Naval Stores Co.
...district attorney, and R. V. Fletcher, attorney general, for appellant. It is useless to deny that the Alabama case cited by counsel from 35 So. 38 supports the conclusion reached by the court But this conclusion of the Alabama court is based upon the idea that a lease such as the record di......
-
State v. Roden Coal Co.
...of the note to the case of Board of Supervisors v. Imperial N.S. Co., supra, as being in conflict with the subsequent case of Ashe Carson v. State, supra. The latter case dealt with mere lease for a number of years of certain pine timber for turpentine purposes. The two cases are, in our op......