Holt v. Long

• Decision Date: 06 May 1937
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 208
• Citation: 234 Ala. 369,174 So. 759
• Parties: HOLT v. LONG et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

174 So. 759

234 Ala. 369

HOLT v. LONG et al.

3 Div. 208

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 6, 1937

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1937

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Bill for declaratory judgment by D.W. Holt, doing business in the name of D.W. Holt Grocery & Market, against Henry S. Long, as president of the State Tax Commission, and the associate members of said commission. From the decree rendered complainant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Mooneyham & Mooneyham, of Montgomery, for appellant.

A.A Carmichael, Atty.Gen., B.W. Simmons, Asst.Atty.Gen., L.H Ellis, of Columbiana, E.C. Boswell, of Geneva, and H.L. Anderton, of Birmingham, for appellees.

GARDNER Justice.

It is the theory of the State Tax Commission, accepted by the court below, that the word "flour," found in subdivision j of section 4 of the Sales Tax Revenue Act of February, 1937 (Acts 1936-1937 (Ex.Sess.) p. 129), dealing with the matter of exemptions, should be construed as having reference to plain flour only, and as excluding all other brands, such as self-rising flour, pancake flour, and the like.

The bill avers and the answer admits "that flour is known by and sold to the public as plain flour, self-rising flour, pancake flour, cake flour, buckwheat flour," and so forth, with the constituent elements of each. The basic element of each is flour, and the small percentage of added ingredients varies according to the secret formulas. Each brand is plainly marked, and the prices vary according to the quality of flour used and the ingredients added.

It appears also, undisputedly, that 75 to 80 per cent. of the flour sold and consumed by the people of Alabama is self-rising flour in some form, notwithstanding plain flour costs a "little less" than the other brands.

We recognize the general rule that exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed in favor of the taxing power. State v. Tuscaloosa Cotton Seed Oil Co., 208 Ala. 610, 95 So. 52. But this rule calls for no strained construction, adverse to the real intention of the Legislature. 61 Corpus Juris 396. And when such real intention can be gathered from the act itself, arbitrary rules are not of controlling importance. Nettles v. Lichtman, 228 Ala. 52, 152 So. 450; Long v. Poulos (Ala.Sup.) 174 So. 230.

When the language is plain and unambiguous, the meaning obvious, there is no room for construction. " 'Possible or even probable meanings, when one is plainly declared in the instrument itself, the courts are not at liberty to search for elsewhere.' *** 'When their language is plain, no discretion is left to us. We have no right to stray into the mazes of conjecture, or to search for an imaginary purpose.' " State v. Praetorians, 226 Ala. 259, 146 So. 411, 413.

So much of this subdivision of the exemption section of the act as is here pertinent reads as follows: "(j) Amounts received from the sale of sweet milk, buttermilk, cornmeal, flour, dry salt sides, salt fat backs, plates, bellies, sugar and coffee."

As to the history of this exemption, it appears that flour was inserted in the exemption section by an amendment in the House as follows: "Amend Section 4 of Substitute for H.B.179 by adding at the end thereof the following provisions: Amounts received from the sale of meal, flour, side meat, coffee and sugar."

But after the passage of the bill as thus amended by the House, the bill was further amended, and, as finally signed by the Governor, appears in its present form as quoted above.

Counsel for the tax commission lay some stress upon the ancient maxim noscitur ex sociis--the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it--a maxim given frequent application in this court. O'Neal v. Turner, 230 Ala. 24, 158 So. 801; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 223 Ala. 385, 136 So. 800; Nettles v. Lichtman, 228 Ala. 52, 152 So. 450.

But we think the above-noted history of this amendment refutes the theory that this maxim can avail the commission in the instant case. As originally framed, the amendment was in broader language, as is illustrated by the use of the word "meal," which might include oatmeal and the like and the words "side meat," which were changed to words more definite. So the law-making body, desiring to avoid...