Finlayson v. City Of Shinnston Et At.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1933 |
| Citation | 113 W.Va. 434 |
| Parties | John L. Finlayson v. City of Shinnston et at. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Under section one of Article Ten of the Constitution of West Virginia as amended by vote of the people at the general election of 1932, levies for the purpose of paying interest and creating sinking funds for bonded indebtedness created subsequent to the adoption of the amendment are required to be within the maximum levies prescribed by the amendment.
Levies for bonded indebtedness created prior to the adoption of the amendment of section one of Article Ten of the Constitution of West Virginia at the general election of 1932, must be made within the maximum levies prescribed by said amendment, except only where necessary to prevent the impairment of the obligations of contracts involved in such indebtedness.
Suit by John L. Finlayson against the City of Shinnston and others. On statutory application of plaintiff for injunction, on refusal thereof by Circuit Court.
Injunction awarded; cause remanded.
Wright Hugus, and James A. Meredith, for plaintiff.
Hardin R. Harmer, and Howard B. Lee, R. Dennis Steed, T. C. Townsend, Houston G. Young, and Hillis Townsend, for defendants.
Maxwell, President:
This suit involves construction of one phase of the constitutional amendment (West Virginia Constitution, Article X. section 1) adopted by vote of the people of the state at the general election of 1932.
The amendment provides "that the aggregate of taxes assessed in any one year" upon the several classes of property therein enumerated shall not be in excess of the specified amounts applicable to the said classes, respectively, except that the Legislature may provide by general law for limited increases of maximum rates upon the vote of the people. That exception is not involved in this case and will not be discussed.
The immediate problem for solution is this: Does the amendment require that levies to pay interest and to create sinking funds for bonded indebtedness, whether incurred prior to the amendment or thereafter, shall be within the maximum levies authorized by the amendment, or may they be in addition to the said authorized maximums?
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the maximum levies permitted by the amendment are inclusive of levies for all purposes, including bonded indebtedness.
On the other hand, it is urged by the attorney general, appearing on behalf of the authorities of the city of Shinnston, that the maximum levies permitted by the constitutional amendment pertain only to taxes levied for general or current expenses and do not include taxes levied for the purpose of paying interest on bonds and creating sinking funds for the liquidation thereof.
As appears from allegations of the bill this suit arises in this manner: The city of Shinnston has an outstanding bonded indebtedness of $60,000, residue of two issues, which required last year and will require this year a levy of thirtyfive cents on the one hundred dollars property valuation. The magisterial district within which the said city is located has an outstanding bonded indebtedness of $108,000, which requires a levy of twenty-two cents on the one hundred dollars valuation of all property within the district, including the city of Shinnston. The aggregate of the levies to meet the requirements of these obligations is fifty-seven cents. To this there? must be added four cents state tax for Virginia debt. In January of this year, for the purpose of improving their city water system, the people of Shinnston voted in favor of an additional bond issue in the amount of $40,000. If such bonds are issued, there will be necessitated an additional levy of eleven and one-half cents. This would make the total levy within the city of Shinnston for bonded indebtedness seventytwo and one-half cents per one hundred dollars of all assessed property.
The plaintiff, a resident property owner of the city of Shinnston, brings this suit on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers similarly situated, and prays that the public authorities of the city of Shinnston be enjoined from negotiating the proposed issue of $4.0, 000 of bonds for water works improvement, or any of them, and from levying any taxes on account of said proposed bond issue, and from making any levy for taxes on account of the said two existing issues of city of Shinnston bonds "in excess of or in disregard of the limittation set forth in said constitutional amendment."
It is further alleged in the bill, and admitted in argument that the Tax Commissioner of the state, acting under authority of Code 1931. 11-1-2, "has issued an official ruling to the effect that the necessary levies to meet sinking fund and interest payments on outstanding bonded indebtedness and upon bonded indebtedness hereafter created as provided by law may be levied by the respective levying bodies of the state in addition to and independent of the maximum rates provided by said constitutional amendment."
The circuit court of Harrison County refused the award of an injunction as prayed for in the bill. Application was thereupon made to this Court for such injunction.
This court must take judicial notice of matters known of all men. "Courts should take notice of whatever is or ought to be generally known, within the limits of their jurisdiction." 15 Ruling Case Law, p. 1057. Therefore, we note that the burden of taxation in this state has reached the crushing point. It was upon that background that the Legislature in the summer of 1932 submitted to the people of the state a proposed constitutional amendment whereof one of the basic purposes was to place a limitation on direct tax levies, and it was on the same background that the people of the state at the November election adopted the amendment.
Taxes levied by the various tax levying bodies of the state have very generally increased by leaps and bounds within the last decade. And not only that, but the people themselves of many taxation units have authorized bond issues, the interest and sinking funds of which now add substantially to the burdens of taxation. The serious economic depression of the last three years has greatly accentuated the tax situation. The people have come to realize that a public spending program of exaggerated proportions, such as came into being in the World War period and in the succeeding years of inflation bears heavily upon the people in a period of adversity.
With these undesirable conditions existing, it must be considered that when the people of the state adopted a constitutional amendment providing that '' The aggregate of taxes assessed in any one year * * * shall not exceed" the maximum levies prescribed by the amendment for different classes of property therein enumerated, the people meant that such prescribed maximum levies should be in fact the outside limit, for all purposes, save only as such course might imperil the integrity of solemn obligations and thereby violate paramount law. We say this because the plain language " Aggregate of taxes" means all the taxes. Simply that and nothing less. Such plain and unequivocal language leaves no room for interpretation.
This conclusion is emphasized by the fact that although the amendment contains a provision limiting the state tax to one cent on the hundred dollars valuation, after 1933, "except to pay the principal and interest of bonded indebtedness of the state now existing", no such exception appears with reference to the bonded indebtedness of any of the governmental subdivisions of the state. Enumeratio unius est exclusio alterius. The conclusion stated is accentuated, too, by the fact that the state senate rejected Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 proposing a constitutional amendment in large measure the same as the amendment later submitted to the people by the Legislature, except that the rejected resolution contained the language: "The limitations contained herein shall not apply to levies for Virginia debt, or levies heretofore or hereafter authorized by a vote of the people under the provisions of section eight, article ten, and the good roads amendment, of this constitution." It therefore seems to have been the intent of both the Legislature and the voters that all levies for governmental subdivisions of the state should come within the maximums fixed by the amendment, except as might be otherwise required by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lance v. Board of Ed. of Roane County
...this Court. See Berry v. Fox, 114 W.Va. 513, 172 S.E. 896; Bee v. City of Huntington, 114 W.Va. 40, 171 S.E. 539; Finlayson v. City of Shinnston, 113 W.Va. 434, 168 S.E. 479; Herold v. Townsend, 113 W.Va. 319, 169 S.E. In the Berry case, in which Article X, Section 1, of the Constitution of......
-
City of Fairmont v. Pitrolo Pontiac-Cadillac Co., PONTIAC-CADILLAC
...County, 146 W.Va. 118, 118 S.E.2d 531 (1961); Bee v. City of Huntington, 114 W.Va. 40, 171 S.E. 539 (1933); Finlayson v. City of Shinnston, 113 W.Va. 434, 168 S.E. 479 (1933). We are asked to distinguish the Hare case by characterizing the tax in this case as a service fee rather than a pro......
-
Bee v. City Of Huntington 0. 0. Eakle
...indebtedness of the state now existing." Section 1, chapter 9, 1932 Extraordinary Session of the Legislature. In Finlayson v. City of Shinnston, 113 W. Va. 434, 168 S. E. 479, this court, construing the amendment, held that the limitation of assessments therein prescribed embraces levies fo......
-
FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY
...590, 87 U. S. 618. It is, however, a circumstance to be weighed along with others when choice is nicely balanced. Finlayson v. Shinnston, 113 W.Va. 434, 437, 168 S.E. 479; cf. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 264 F. 138, 174; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78, 89. Reinforcing this......