Hays v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 14 May 1923
• Docket Number: 378
• Citation: 250 S.W. 879,159 Ark. 101
• Parties: HAYS v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (1) STATE v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (2)
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

250 S.W. 879

159 Ark. 101

HAYS v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (1)

STATE v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (2)

No. 378

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 14, 1923

Appeal from Jackson Chancery Court; Lyman F. Reeder, Judge affirmed.

Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court, Southern District; John E Martineau, Chancellor; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

These are companion cases, involving the construction of statutes which are claimed to violate art. 16, § 5, of our Constitution, requiring uniformity of taxation, and may be disposed of in one opinion.

The Legislature of 1921 passed an act to provide a method of assessment of property for school purposes in the school district of Newport, Swifton Special School District and Tuckerman Special School District, Jackson County, Ark. Special Acts of 1921, p. 899.

Sec. 1 of the act provides that it shall be the duty of the county assessor, at the time of making any assessment of property for taxation in the school districts enumerated above, to assess the same at seventy-five per cent. of its true market value, notwithstanding any other basis of valuation then being used, and on which valuations are being entered in a column in said assessor's books.

Sec. 2 provides that the extension of said taxes for said school districts shall be made on the basis of seventy-five per cent. of the true market value of said property.

Sec. 3 makes it the duty of the collector of taxes of Jackson County to collect the taxes for school purposes in said school district on the basis of the assessments fixed by the act.

Sec. 5 provides that the act shall apply only to the school districts above named.

The terms of the act were complied with by the assessor, and the taxes for school purposes in the districts mentioned were duly extended at seventy-five per cent. of the valuation of the property situated in said districts.

The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and others filed separate complaints against Geo. R. Hays, as tax collector of Jackson County, and J. F. Parish, as county clerk of said county. The complaint in each case is practically the same, and sets out the facts above recited.

It is also alleged that, for the year 1921, the Arkansas Tax Commission, pursuant to the statutes of the State, assessed the property of the plaintiffs, which are railroads, for all State, county, and school purposes; that said Commission made said assessments on the basis of fifty per cent. of the true market value of said property, and certified such assessment on the property of said plaintiffs located in Jackson County to the assessor of said county; that the assessor of said county set down in a separate column the value of the property of the plaintiffs, situated in the special school districts above named, for school purposes on the basis of seventy-five per cent. of the true market value, and that Geo. R. Hays, as tax collector of said county, was proceeding to collect said school taxes in said school district on the basis of the assessment and extension of taxes under and by authority of the special act approved March 25, 1921, and referred to above. Similar suits were filed by owners of private property against said collector and said county clerk. Their complaints also alleged that their property in said school districts was assessed at a different valuation for other general taxes than is required by the statute for school purposes.

By agreement of all the parties, the chancery court consolidated the cases for trial, and heard them together. The chancery court found that the special act in question was unconstitutional because it was in violation of art. 16 § 5 of our Constitution, requiring uniformity of taxation throughout the State.

The Legislature of 1921 also passed a special act to provide a method of assessment of property for taxation for school purposes in DeValls Bluff Special District No. 1, Prairie County, Ark. Special Acts of 1921, p. 1259.

Sec. 1 provides for a hundred per cent. assessment of all property for school purposes in said school district.

Sec. 2 provides for the extension of said taxes, and 3 provides for their collection on the basis of the assessment fixed by the act by the collector of taxes of said county.

The State of Arkansas, on the relation of the Attorney General for the benefit of said special school district, brought a suit in the Prairie Chancery Court against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company to collect the taxes overdue and unpaid under said act, and to declare the same a lien upon the property of said railroads.

The complaint alleges a compliance with the act by the officers whose duty it is to levy and collect the taxes under its terms, and the refusal of the railroad companies to pay the same.

In addition to the facts above set forth, it appears from the record in this case that the Arkansas Tax Commission assessed the property of said railroad companies in said special district at fifty per cent. of its true market value, and certified the same to the proper officers, as required by law.

The chancellor was of the opinion that the special act in question was contrary to the provisions of art. 16, § 5 of the Constitution of 1874, and it was decreed that the complaint should be dismissed for want of equity.

All the cases are here on appeal.

Affirmed.

Boyce & Mack, for appellants.

Act is not objectionable as attempt by Legislature to value certain classes of property. Neither does it modify or change the duties of the assessor, county boards or State Tax Commission. 49 Ark. 518. No requirement of the Constitution that the levying court shall levy school taxes, the duty being imposed by statute. Secs. 8956-57, Crawford & Moses' Digest. Failure to provide for appeal does not affect validity of act. 57 Ark. 529. The only question in the case is whether or not the act is in conflict with § 5 art. 16, of the Constitution. The Legislature may require that, for school purposes alone, in all or any of the school districts of the State, all property be valued at 100 per cent. of its actual value, and then apply a different rule or basis for the valuation for State and county purposes without violation of the equality and uniformity clause. 37 Cyc. 735, 742, 26 R. C. L. 245; 101 U.S. 153, 25 L. ed. 903; 49 Ark. 336; 25 Ark. 289. A school district is a taxing district. 57 Ark. 554. A statute is presumed to be constitutional, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. 60 Ark. 343; 99 Ark. 14. The Constitution does not expressly forbid the adoption of different bases of valuation in different districts of the State. Case of 62 Ark. 461 and others following it are not controlling here. The Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from fixing a basis of valuation. 127 Ark. 353. The fact that the Legislature might make laws fixing a different basis of valuation in different counties, different school districts and different municipalities for local purposes is no argument against the validity of this act. 117 Ark. 622.

Thos. B. Pryor, Ponder & Gibson, W. J. Orr, Jno. W. & Jos. M. Stayton, O. W. Scarborough, Gustave Jones, Thos. S. Buzbee, George B. Pugh and H. T. Harrison, for appellees.

The act fixing the different bases of valuation of property for taxation of property for taxation for school purposes in this district mentioned conflicts with § 5, art. 16, Constitution. 2 Ark. 365; 25 Ark. 295 (Const. 1868); 57 Ark. 557; 48 Ark. 370; 127 Ark. 349; 139 Ark. 41; 62 Ark. 461; 32 Ark. 31; 46 Ark. 312; 63 Ark. 592; 90 Ark. 416. Due process of law feature. 26 R. C. L. 340-1, 53 L. R. A. 454; 34 L. R. A. 725; 221 U.S. 358. The right to a hearing. 118 U.S. 394; 164 U.S. 112; 203 U.S. 323; 207 U.S. 127; 210 U.S. 373; 2 L. R. A. 655, 1916-E, L. R. A. 5 (note); 30 Amer. Rep. 289; 31 L. R. A. 382. Mode of assessment of railroad property fixed as entirety and tax apportioned among different counties, etc. 26 R. C. L. 188- 191; 13 Am. St. Rep. 482; 69 L. R. A. 447; 1916-E, L. R. A. 1186. State Tax Commission only has authority to assess property of railroads. Sec. 9788, C. & M. Digest; 94 Ark. 219; 52 Ark. 535; 64 Ark. 437; 130 Ark. 261; 127 Ark. 353.

J. S. Utley, Attorney General, and Chas. B. Thweatt, special counsel, for appellants.

The only question presented is whether or not act 627, Acts 1921 is valid. This act requires the property in DeValls Bluff Special School District to be assessed at one hundred per cent. of its true market value for school purposes. The Legislature has plenary power to pass any law not forbidden by the Constitution of the State or of the United States. Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 132. Its power of taxation has no limit except in the express provisions of the Constitution and the declared ends of government. 49 Ark. 349. Davies v. Hot Springs, 141 Ark. 525; 37 Cyc. 728. The act is valid unless it violates some express provision of either the State or Federal Constitution. Does not violate Amendment 9 to § 3, art. 14, Const. Neither does it conflict with the due process and equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution. Sec. 9790, C. & M. Digest; Taylor on Due Process of Law, 365; 52 Ark. 538; 90 Ark. 417; 26 R. C. L. 345; 138 Ark. 488; 141 Ark. 600; 191 U.S. 310. The chancellor erred in holding the act void as in conflict with § 5, art. 16, Constitution 1874. Taxing by a uniform rule (Const. 1868). 25 Ark. 295; 27 Ark. 210. Board v. Missouri, 61 P. 693. Uniformity throughout the State, § 12, art. 3, Const. Construction of identical provision in Constitution 1836. 105 U.S. 278; 64 Ark. 570; 96 Ark. 419; 125 Ark. 167. Equality and uniformity rule frequently applied to a single county. 138 Ark. 452; 124 Ark. 569; 92 Ark. 492. Uniformity requirement...