Board of Sup'rs of Jones County v. Mills

• Decision Date: 02 January 1923
• Docket Number: 22872
• Citation: 94 So. 448,130 Miss. 454
• Parties: BOARD OF SUP'RS OF JONES COUNTY v. LAUREL MILLS
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

94 So. 448

130 Miss. 454

BOARD OF SUP'RS OF JONES COUNTY v. LAUREL MILLS

No. 22872

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 2, 1923

1 TAXATION. State tax commission without power to review order of board of supervisors increasing or reducing assessment for taxation.

The state tax commission is without power to review an order made by a board of supervisors under section 4312, Code of 1906 (section 649, Hemingway's Code), increasing or reducing an assessment of property for taxation.

2 TAXATION. Trial by circuit court on agreed facts of appeal from supervisors reducing or refusing to reduce assessment a trial on merits.

A trial by a circuit court on an agreed statement of facts of an appeal to it from an order of a board of supervisors reducing or refusing to reduce an assessment of property for taxation is a trial on the merits.

HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, HON. R. S. HALL, Judge.

Proceedings by the Laurel Mills against the board of supervisors of Jones county to correct an assessment of its property for taxation. From an order revoking its former order reducing the assessment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

D. C. Enochs, assistant attorney-general, for appellant.

There are two propositions that I desire to argue: (1) that the board of state tax commissioners must approve reductions of assessments under section 4312, Code 1906, before the board of supervisors can render a valid order of reduction thereunder; and (2) that on appeal by the applicant for reduction under said statute from an order of the board of supervisors can render a valid order of reduction thereunder; and (3) that on appeal by the applicant for reduction under said statute from an order of the board of supervisors vacating its order allowing the reduction, and denying the reduction in accordance with the order of the board of state tax commissioners, the circuit court is without authority to try the controversy and an agreed statement of facts as found by the board of supervisors, entered into by the attorney for the applicant and attorneys for the board of supervisors, but should try the controversy on the evidence itself in support of the right of the applicant for the reduction.

By chapter 98, Laws 1916, the board of state tax commissioners was created, and its duties defined. Chapter 98, Laws 1916, was amended by chapters 135 and 228, Laws 1918, and chapter 323, Laws 1920, and it is the contention of the appellant that the board of state tax commissioners, in the light of said acts of the legislature, as construed by this court in the case of Taylor et al., County Supervisors v. State, ex rel. Collins, Atty. Gen., 121 Miss. 771, 83 So. 810, and the cases therein cited, must approve reductions of assessments by the board of supervisors under section 4312, Code 1906.

It will be noted in the Taylor case, just cited, that this court held that where the state tax commission had ordered a certain raise on any class of property, that the board of supervisors might, by a re-equalization of that class of property among the owners, raise the assessment the required amount, or as much thereof as legally possible, and the balance by a horizontal raise on all of the property. Certainly then the board of state tax commissioners should have a say so, in the matter of reductions of such assessments for clerical errors, overvaluation known to be such, etc., under section 4312, Code 1906. Otherwise, a board of supervisors could raise the assessments of several owners of a certain class of property in order to raise the amount of the assessment of the class to that required by the commission, and subsequently under section 4312, Code 1906, reduce the same for clerical error, overvaluation known to be such, and the like, thereby rendering the acts of the legislature creating the board of state tax commissioners, and defining its powers and duties, of no effect whatever.

In the case at bar it appears that from the evidence presented in support of the application, the board of supervisors decided the facts, justified a reduction on the grounds stated in the petition, and that the board of state tax commissioners found to the contrary. And if the board of state tax commissioners must consent to reductions of assessments under section 4312, and refuse to consent as in the case at bar, it seems to me that it necessarily follows that on appeal by the applicant to the circuit court from the order of the board of supervisors refusing the reduction in accordance with the order of the board of state tax commissioners, that the circuit court should not try the controversy on an agreed statement of facts in accordance with the finding of the board of supervisors, entered into between the attorney for the board of supervisors and the attorney for the applicant to the circuit court from the order of the board of supervisors refusing the reduction in accordance with the order of the board of supervisors, entered into between the attorneys for the board of supervisors and the attorney for the applicant for reduction. From the evidence itself in support of the application for reduction, the board of supervisors found the facts to be as stated in the agreed statement of facts by the aforesaid attorneys, but it seems that the board of state tax commissioners found from said evidence the facts to be otherwise. Of course there was no controversy between the applicant and the board of supervisors on the facts.

The board of supervisors found the facts in favor of the applicant. And in such cases, if the circuit court is authorized to try the "controversy" on the facts as found by the board of supervisors from the evidence, and not from the evidence itself, then the acts of the legislature creating the board of state tax commissioners, and defining its powers and duties, are rendered of no effect whatever.

As I have said, our contention is that both the board of supervisors and board of state tax commissioners must concur in the facts in order that a reduction of an assessment may be granted by the board of supervisors under section 4312. I further contend that if the two boards disagree, the decision of the board of state tax commissioners is controlling, and if I am correct in my contention, then the "controversy" in this case originated with the board of state tax commissioners. Under the evidence in support of the application for reduction the board of supervisors found a state of facts existing entitling the applicant to the reduction, but under that evidence the board of state tax commissioners found the existence of a state of facts that did not entitle the applicant to the reduction. Then does it not follow that on an appeal by the applicant from an order of the board of supervisors vacating its order of reduction, and refusing the reduction in accordance with the order of the board of state tax commissioners, that the circuit court in trying anew the controversy thus created, should not do so upon an agreed statement of the facts as found from the evidence by the board of supervisors, but only upon the evidence itself upon which the facts are predicated.

It may be contended by the appellee that no evidence was...