Ex Parte fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 1060,62 Ark. 461
• Parties: Ex parte FORT SMITH & VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

36 S.W. 1060

62 Ark. 461

Ex parte FORT SMITH & VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 6, 1896

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, JEPHTHA H. EVANS, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

L. F Parker and B. R. Davidson, for appellant.

"No one species of property * * shall be taxed higher than another species * * of equal value." Const. art. 16 sec. 3. There must be uniformity. 27 Ark. 202-210; 49 Ark 337; 48 id. 382; 101 U.S. 143, 153; 127 id. 193; 41 F. 468. It is a violation of the constitution to assess at its full value one piece of property, while all other property is assessed at fifty per cent.

E. B. Kinsworthy, Attorney General, contra.

1. In estimating the value of property, it is proper to take into consideration the advantages or profits that can or may be derived from it. 17 A. 234; 46 N.J.L. 67; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 226; 79 Am. Dec. 396. Appellants have only estimated the cost of construction, omitting the franchise and profits, etc.

2. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that the value fixed is a fair and just one. 146 N.Y. 304.

3. It is the duty of the assessor to assess the property at its cash value--not at half its cash value. Sand. & H. Dig., sec. 6498; 15 S.E. 768, 67 Miss. 614. The fact that other property is assessed below its true value will not entitle appellant to have the assessment of its property reduced to a value less than its cash value. 26 A. 845; 25 N.E. 469.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

The Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge Company owns a bridge over and across the Arkansas river, one-half of which is in Sebastian, and the other in Crawford, county. The assessor assessed the half of it in Crawford, for the year 1895, at $ 150,000. The bridge company then complained to the county board of equalization of excessive valuation, and asked that the assessment be reduced to $ 75,000; and the board reduced it to $ 125,000, and refused to make any further reduction. The bridge company then appealed to the county court, and it refused any relief, and then appealed to the circuit court, and, it refusing to reduce the valuation, appealed to this court.

The evidence adduced at the trial in the circuit court proved the facts we have stated; that $ 240,000 or $ 250,000 was a fair market price for the entire bridge; and that the basis on which the board of equalization of Crawford county attempted to equalize the assessment of all real estate in that county for 1895 was 50 per cent. of its actual value; that is to say, made the assessed or taxable value of such property one-half of what it was actually worth. Appellant contends that, under the circumstances, the assessment of one-half of the bridge should have been reduced, according to its request, to $ 75,000.

The theory of our constitution is that the burden of the support of the government should be borne by common contributions. Taxation is the principal means provided for this purpose. To make this burden equal, all property subject to taxation is required to be taxed according to its value, "that value to be ascertained in such manner as the general assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the state;" and the constitution provides that "no one species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value." Constitution, art. 16, sec. 5.

To carry into effect the constitution in this respect, the general assembly has enacted statutes making it the duty of the assessors of the counties in this state to assess all real estate "at its true market value in money" (Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 6498, 6499), and to prevent unjust discrimination, and to make the burden of taxation equal and uniform, enacted statutes which require the appointment of a board of equalization for every county in this state, whose duty it is to hear complaints of property-owners, and to equalize the valuation of all property, personal and real. In the discharge of this duty the board is required to observe the following rules:

"First. It shall raise the valuation of such tracts and lots of real property as in the opinion of the board have been returned [that is, by the assessor] below their true value to such price or sum as may be deemed to be the true value thereof, agreeably to the requirements of this chapter in regard to the valuation of real property. Said board may actually enter upon and view property when they are not fully satisfied of its true value.

"Second. It may reduce the valuation of such tracts or lots as in the opinion of the board have been returned above their true value, as compared with the average valuation of the real property of such county, having due regard to the relative situation, quality of soil, improvements and natural and artificial advantages" (Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 6526, 6530).

According to the first of these rules, it is the duty of the board to raise the valuation of all real property, which has been undervalued, to its true value; and, according to the second, it is authorized to reduce the valuation of that which has been "returned above its true value, as compared with the average valuation of the real property of the county." From the two it is apparent that the board has no authority to discriminate against one tract or lot of real estate in favor of all other property of the same kind in the county. All property of the same class should be valued according to the same standard, and that should be the market value. But, in the event the assessor has not done this, and the board finds that he has made exceptions to his rule of valuation, and assessed the real estate of a few higher than that of the majority of the property owners, the statute authorizes it to reduce the assessment of the few by valuing their property according to the rule by which such property of the majority was assessed. Whether the statute in this respect is constitutional, it is not necessary, at this time, to determine. One thing is clear, however; and that is, the assessor and board have no right to make discriminations in the assessment and equalization of the valuation of property.

The real property of Crawford county, with few exceptions, was assessed, it appears, for 1895, at one-half its market value. The bridge of appellants was one of the exceptions. The board refused relief against this wrong, and its owner appealed to the county court. Was it entitled to relief? It may be said that, inasmuch as its property was not assessed above its true value, it had no right to complain. But this is not true. It had the right to demand that no unequal burden be imposed upon it by taxation. Dundee Mortgage Trust Investment Co. v. Charlton, 13 Sawy. 25, 32 F. 192. The duty to contribute to the support of the state government by the payment of taxes is imposed upon all persons owning property subject to taxation. The constitution provides that this burden shall be apportioned among...