Day v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 09 February 1903
• Citation: 101 Va. 248,43 S.E. 362
• Parties: DAY et al. v. ROBERTS, Treasurer.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

43 S.E. 362

101 Va. 248

DAY et al.

v.ROBERTS, Treasurer.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 9, 1903.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—UNIFORM TAXATION— EXEMPTIONS.

1. Uniform taxation requires that the tax must be uniform throughout the territory to which it is applicable.

2. Under Const. 1869, art. 10, § 1, providing that taxation shall be equal and uniform, whether imposed by the state, county, or other corporate bodies, a town charter which undertakes to relieve property within the town from the payment of county taxes is void.

Appeal from circuit court, Isle of Wight county.

Suit by Roberts, treasurer, against Day and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

R. S. Thomas and Burroughs & Bros., for appellants.

R. E. Boykin, for appellee.

BUCHANAN, J. By section 20 of an act entitled "An act to repeal the charter of the town of Smithfield and to grant a new charter to said town, " approved February 17, 1900 (Acts 1899-1900, p. 417), it Is provided "that the said town and all taxable persons and property therein shall be free and exempt from the payment of any poor rates, any road, school or other tax to or by the county of Isle of Wight, and from contributing to the county expenses for any year: provided the said town shall, at Its own expense, provide for its poor and attend to its own streets."

The board of supervisors of the county of Isle of Wight, in which the town of Smith-field is located, at their annual meeting in July, 1900, fixed the amount of the levy for the ensuing year, and "ordered" a levy on all persons and property in the county assessed with state taxes, including the taxable persons and property in the town of Smithfieid, other than poor rates and road taxes, and were proceeding to collect the same, when they were enjoined at the suit of the appellants, who were residents of the town of Smithfieid, and the owners of real and personal property situated therein. At the hearing of the cause upon a demurrer to the bill and amended bills, the circuit court for the county was of the opinion that so much of section 20 of the charter as sought to exempt the town and taxable persons and property therein from the payment of taxes to the county for general county purposes (other than poor rates and road taxes) was unconstitutional and void, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the bill. From that decree this appeal was granted.

By section 1, art. 10, of the constitution of 1869, it is provided that: "Taxation, except as hereinafter provided, whether Imposed by the state, county or corporate bodies, shall be equal and uniform and all property, both real and personal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value to be ascertained as prescribed by law. No one species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than any other species of property of equal value."

The object and meaning of those provisions are manifest. In governments like ours the legislature is the taxing power, and, in the absence of constitutional limitations, that power may be exercised by it both as to subjects and modes to almost any extent It may deem proper. This discretion can rarely, If ever, be interfered with by the courts. In such cases, until in recent years, the only guaranty against an abuse of this discretion was to be found in the integrity of the legislature, its sense of justice, the responsibility of its members to their constituents, and the frequent recurrence of elections for the choice of new members, who might remedy unjust or unequal taxation. But in this state, as in many, if not all, of the states of the Union, the people have seen fit by constitutional provisions to limit this power, and to direct how it shall be exercised so as to guard against its abuse. By our state constitution of 1851 it was provided by section 22, art 4, that "taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the commonwealth, and all property shall be taxed in proportion to its value, " except slaves. This provision was held by this court in the case of Gilkerson v. Frederick Justices, 13 Grat. 577, not to apply to taxation by counties for their local purposes, but only to taxation by the state for the purposes of state revenue.

The convention which adopted the constitution of 1869 must have known that under the constitution it was framing the larger portion of the aggregate of taxation would be required to meet the purposes of the counties and cities and other local subdivisions of the state, and that such taxes could only be levied as the legislature should provide. If it was necessary to guard against an abuse of legislative power by carefully providing for just, uniform, and equal taxation for supplying revenue for state purposes, as the convention of 1851 thought, it was equally, if not more, important, to provide the same safeguards as to the larger burdens of taxation which the legislature might authorize the subordinate divisions of the state to impose for their local revenue. To accomplish this end, the convention, in framing section 1, art. 10, of the constitution of 1869, limiting and directing the power of the legislature, extended its provisions beyond those of the convention of 1851, so as to make them apply not only to taxation imposed by the state for state purposes, but also to taxation imposed by counties and corporate bodies for local revenue. Norfolk City v. Ellis, 26 Grat 226, 227.

Constitutional provisions similar to the one now under consideration have frequently been before the courts. The...