Champion v. McLean
Decision Date | 25 April 1957 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 786 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Louise S. CHAMPION as Tax Assessor of Montgomery County, et al. v. James McLEAN et al. |
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Thetford, Circuit Solicitor, Montgomery, Willard W. Livingston and Arthur Joe Grant, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
Rushton, Stakely & Johnston and John B. Scott, Montgomery, and Preston C. Clayton, Eufaula, for appellees.
Appellees, taxpayers and owners of cattle in Montgomery County, filed a bill in equity for declaratory judgment and respondents filed demurrer. Demurrer of appellants was overruled and counsel for both parties stipulate that the facts alleged in the bill are true, and that the questions for decision are solely questions of law which may be determined from appellees' bill for declaratory judgment.
The circuit court rendered a decree construing the statutes involved in accordance with appellees' contentions. From that decree, this appeal is taken and the rulings of the circuit court are assigned as error.
The question regarding the existence of a justiciable controversy was raised by the demurrer. In overruling the demurrer, the trial court held that such a controversy did exist. The correctness of this ruling is one assignment of error, but we pretermit consideration thereof because appellants state in brief:
'Although this ruling is assigned as error, no argument will be made with respect thereto as the parties concerned are desirous of a declaration of the law by this Court on the legal questions involved.'
The appellants, as tax officials, contend that all cattle are subject to ad valorem tax by virtue of the provisions of Title 51, § 21(e), Code 1940, except as specifically exempt under Title 51, § 2(j), Code 1940.
Appellees contend that all cattle raised on the farm in the hands of the original producer are 'products raised on the farm in the hands of the original producers' within the meaning of Title 51, § 21(d), Code 1940, and that cattle remaining in the hands of the original producer thereof are 'agricultural products' within the meaning of Title 51, § 2(h), Code 1940. Appellees further contend that cattle which have been raised or grown in the State of Alabama and which remain in the hands of the producer thereof, or his landlord, or in the hands of a co-operative association for all time, and for a period of one year in the hands of the purchaser of said cattle, are exempt from ad valorem taxation under Title 51, § 2(h), Code 1940
The decree appealed from recites that it is:
'Ordered, Adjudged, Declared And Decreed by the Court as follows:
The above rulings of the circuit court are assigned as error and argued on this appeal. The sole question for decision by this court is the correctness of the above rulings of the circuit court.
Paragraph 1. of the decree below declared that cattle raised on the farm in the hands of the original producer are products raised on the farm in the hands of the original producer and are therefore tax exempt, within the meaning of Subsection (d) § 21, Title 51 Code 1940.
The pertinent subsections of § 21, Title 51 Code 1940, recite as follows:
* * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The subsections quoted above from the 1940 Code are the same, without any material change, as Subsections (d) and (e) of § 10 of Act No. 194, Acts 1935, page 256, entitled 'An Act To Provide For The General Revenue Of The State of Alabama.'
Stripped of phrases and clauses not essential to this decision, the pertinent provisions of Subsections (d) and (e) of § 21, Title 51 Code 1940, read as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Subsection (d) which is set out above, as it appears to us, is clearly intended to relate to the assessment of 'all stocks of goods, wares and merchandise,' kept for sale, etc. The proviso of said Subsection (d) relied on by appellees, appears at the end of a sentence which begins with the words 'All stocks of goods, wares and merchandise.'
The next and last sentence of the subsection provides that in the event the person 'carrying on such business shall fail to make return of the amount of stock of goods, wares and merchandise as provided by law, or if the county tax assessor is not satisfied with the return made, * * *,' he may proceed in the manner there indicated to obtain information so as to assess the 'amount of such stock of goods, wares or merchandise' upon his best judgment.
It appears to us that this subsection was intended by the legislature to deal with a mercantile business. The subjects of taxation mentioned therein are designated by words commonly used to designate the articles or assets...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson
...Trust Co. v. Boykin, 38 Ala. 510 (1863); Lindsay v. United States Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171 (1898); Champion v. McLean, 266 Ala. 103, 95 So.2d 82 (1957) (the power to make the law has been committed to the legislature by the Constitution, and the only power of the court is......
-
Smith v. Schulte
...are exceeded, the Legislature is of supreme authority, and the courts, as well as all others, must obey.' " Champion v. McLean, 266 Ala. 103 at 118, 95 So.2d 82 (1957), quoting State v. Birmingham So. Ry., 182 Ala. 475, 479, 62 So. 77, 79 (1913). "The only power of [the Alabama Supreme] [C]......
-
Perdue v. Green
...its methods or substituting its judgment for that of the executive and legislative branches of the government”); Champion v. McLean, 266 Ala. 103, 117–18, 95 So.2d 82, 97 (1957) (observing that “[t]he power to make the law has been committed to the legislature by the Constitution” and that ......
-
Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green, 1101337
...methods or substituting its judgment for that of the executive and legislative branches of the government"); Champion v. McLean, 266 Ala. 103, 117-18, 95 So. 2d 82, 97 (1957) (observing that M[t]he power to make the law has been committed to the legislature by the Constitution" and that [s]......