Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Knox

• Decision Date: 15 June 1926
• Docket Number: 25394
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES v. KNOX, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. [*]

108 So. 907

144 Miss. 560

EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES v. KNOX, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. ^[*]

No. 25394

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 15, 1926

Division A

APPEAL from chancery court of Pearl River county, HON. T. P. DALE Chancellor.

Bill by the Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees against Rush H. Knox attorney-general, and others seeking to enjoin defendants from prosecuting an appeal from the assessment of plaintiffs' lands. The motion to dissolve the temporary injunction was granted, and the bill of complaint dismissed and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and judgment rendered.

Decree affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

T. J. Wills, T. W. Davis, W. L. Wallace and H. C. Holden, filed briefs for appellants.

Rawls & Hathorn and Rush H. Knox, Attorney-General filed briefs for appellees.

OPINION

COOK, J.

The appellants filed a bill in the chancery court of Pearl River county, seeking to perpetually enjoin Rush H. Knox, attorney-general, and E. C. Sharp, F. C. Hathorn, and E. B. Williams, attorneys at law employed by Rush H. Knox, from the prosecution of an appeal taken by the attorney-general from the assessment of the lands and timber of the appellants, as made by Pearl River county for the years 1923 and 1924. A temporary injunction was issued and served, and thereupon the appellees, through their attorneys Rawls and Hathorn, filed a plea, demurrer, and answer to the bill of complaint under the rules prescribed by the Chancery Practice Act of 1924 (Laws 1924, chapter 151), and also filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, and notice thereof was given to the appellants. On the day fixed for the hearing, by agreement of the parties, the motion to dissolve was heard on the bill, pleas, and demurrer, and the chancellor sustained the motion to dissolve the injunction, and, the appellants declining to amend or plead further, the bill of complaint was dismissed. The question of the allowance of damages on the injunction bond was continued for hearing at a later day, and upon the hearing of the motion for and notice of damages, the appellees offered testimony as to the value of the land and timber and the probable amount of taxes involved in the appeal from appellants' assessment for taxes, and also offered the testimony of several attorneys as to the amount of a reasonable fee for services rendered in securing the dissolution of the injunction, and the court fixed the attorney's fee at five thousand dollars, while other items of damage amounting to two hundred thirty-three dollars and sixty-five cents were agreed upon, and, from the decree dissolving the injunction, dismissing the bill, and awarding damages, this appeal was prosecuted.

The pleadings are long, and we shall only state the substance of those averments which we deem necessary to an understanding of the grounds for reversal argued by counsel; for the appellant. The bill of complaint avers that the taxing authorities of Pearl River county endeavored to assess the property of all taxpayers and owners of property in said county at the same percentage of the true value thereof, in order that there might be equality of taxation in that county as between various taxpayers; that in pursuance of this purpose, at the July, 1923, meeting, the board of supervisors equalizing the tax assessment of the county and gave the statutory notice to taxpayers to appear and register their objections to the changes and corrections made therein by the board; that at the August, 1923, meeting, the board of supervisors, after hearing all objections to the said roll, approved it, and ordered that the final recapitulation of the said assessment roll be certified to the state tax commission; that on the 29th day of September, 1923, the said tax commission approved the recapitulations of the roll, and directed the board to make copies thereof; that on the 2d day of October, 1923, the board of supervisors entered on its minutes the order of the said tax commission approving the roll; and that the board of supervisors then adjourned its October meeting on the 3d day of October, 1923.

The bill further charged that under the law the attorney-general received a commission of fifteen per cent. of any increased taxes that might be collected by appeals from assessments; that during the year, 1923, Clayton D. Potter, then attorney-general of the state of Mississippi, employed F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams, attorneys engaged in private practice, to take and prosecute an appeal from the assessment of the complainants; that the said F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams were not assistant attorneys-general, and were in no sense representatives of the state of Mississippi or of any political subdivision thereof, but were attorneys employed by the attorney-general to take, in his name, appeals from the assessments of many taxpayers of the state under some arrangement or agreement for a division of the commission collected thereby; that on November 22, 1923, in pursuance of such employment, the said F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams prepared and filed a petition to appeal from the complainants' assessment, but that said petition was incomplete, in that it failed to describe the land covered by the assessment which was attempted to be appealed from, but merely prayed that the clerk make a list of said lands from the assessment roll where the same appeared and attach it to said petition; that, while said petition appeared on its face to have been signed by the attorney-general, as a matter of fact, he did not prepare or sign said petition, but it was prepared in the office of the chancery clerk of Pearl River county on November 22, 1923, and the name of the attorney-general signed thereto by the said F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams at a time when the attorney-general was not present; that the said F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams were not authorized to sign, on behalf of the state of Mississippi, the name of the attorney-general to a petition for appeal; and that the appeal taken by these private attorneys was without authority of law and void.

It was further charged that the final order of the board of supervisors approving the roll on the 2d day of October, 1923, was the order designated by law from which appeals should be taken, and that the attempt to appeal by petition, filed November 22, 1923, more than twenty days after the adjournment of the October meeting of the board, was not within the time prescribed by law, and was therefore null and void.

It was further averred that the taxing authorities of Pearl River county, for the year, 1923, endeavored to assess the property of all taxpayers in said county at approximately sixty per cent. of the true value of such property; that this was the uniform system adopted by the taxing authorities of said county, and intentionally followed by them; that under the law it is the duty of the state tax commission to so equalize the assessments as between the various counties of the state that all property shall be assessed upon an equal basis; that during the year 1923, the said tax commission intentionally and systematically adopted sixty per cent. of the true value of property as a basis of all assessments, and so equalized the rolls of the various counties of the state that all property in the state should be assessed on the basis of approximately sixty per cent. of its true value; that complainants' property in Pearl River county had already been assessed at even more than sixty per cent. of its true value, and that it is the purpose and intent of the defendants, by means of their attempted appeal from complainants' assessment, to require the complainants' property to be assessed at one hundred per cent. value; that to assess the complainants' property at one hundred per cent. value, contrary to the general policy and system adopted as aforesaid, would violate the provisions of section 112 of the Constitution of Mississippi, providing for equal and uniform taxation throughout the state; that, regardless of the system that has been adopted throughout the state, a court of law will require complainants' property to be assessed at its true value, in accordance with the laws of the state, and that so to do would be inequitable, unjust, and unconstitutional.

It was further charged that the appeal and claim thus made that the complainants were due and owing other and further taxes on said property had the effect of creating a lien on said property, and thereby placed a cloud, doubt, or suspicion upon complainants' title, and that they were entitled to have said tax appeal canceled and the cloud removed.

The appeal further avers that, on account of the nature of the case and the large amount of property involved, it will require the expenditure of much money and time to prepare the defense to the circuit court proceeding, and that, since no part of this expense could be collected from the defendants if the complainants were successful, they would suffer irreparable damages if they were required to litigate the matter in the circuit court.

The prayer of the bill was for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants F. C. Hathorn and E. B. Williams and E. C. Sharpe, and any and all other assistant attorneys-general, or attorneys or agents representing the attorney-general's office, and all other representatives of the state or the county of Pearl River, from prosecuting said cause in the circuit court of Pearl River county, and from taking any part therein or in any wise pressing the same for trial or proceeding therein, and that, on final hearing, full and adequate relief between the parties be granted, including the making of said temporary injunction final, and canceling the appeal as a cloud on complai...