Cook v. Surplus Trading Co., 171.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1930
• Docket Number: No. 171.,171.
• Parties: COOK, Sheriff, et al. v. SURPLUS TRADING CO.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 521

31 S.W.2d 521

COOK, Sheriff, et al. v. SURPLUS TRADING CO.

No. 171.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 13, 1930.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Action by R. A. Cook, Sheriff, and others, against the Surplus Trading Company. Decree for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed and remanded with directions in part, and affirmed in part.

See also 297 S. W. 822.

Sam T. & Tom Poe and McDonald Poe, all of Little Rock, for appellants.

Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, of Little Rock, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

As pointed out in our original opinion, 297 S. W. 822, under section 9889 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, all property assessed in this state shall be assessed by the duly authorized authorities according to its value on the 1st day of May. The record shows that appellee failed to assess its personal property and that the clerk put the same on the tax roll as omitted property, and the assessor duly assessed the same under the provisions of sections 9906 and 9910 of Crawford & Moses' Digest. In making the assessment, however, the county assessor assessed the property in a lump sum of the value of $100,000. A part of this property was situated at that date on the Camp Pike Military Reservation and was not subject to assessment by the state authorities. Surplus Trading Co. v. R. A. Cook, Sheriff (June 2, 1930) 281 U. S. 647, 50 S. Ct. 455, 74 L. Ed. 1091.

On the date of May 1, 1922, there was stored in the Terminal Warehouse in the city of Little Rock blankets of the estimated value of $20,000. These blankets should have been assessed by the county assessor. We are asked now to direct the chancery court to segregate these blankets from the others and make the assessment. It is not within the province of the courts to assess property. Under our Constitution and laws, the duty of assessing all property devolves upon the assessor, and no one else can perform that duty. Lyman v. Howe, 64 Ark. 436, 42 S. W. 830, and Walton v. Arkansas County, 153 Ark. 285, 239 S. W. 1054. Courts can only review the assessments made by the assessing officers and have no power under our Constitution and laws to make the assessments.

Therefore, the decree of the chancery court will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded with directions to the chancery court to direct that the county assessor shall make an assessment of the blankets and other personal property of appellee which was situated in the Terminal Warehouse...