Hooper v. State

• Decision Date: 29 November 1904
• Citation: 37 So. 662,141 Ala. 111
• Parties: HOOPER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So. 662

141 Ala. 111

HOOPER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 29, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Proceedings by the state to raise the assessment on the personal property of J. F. Hooper. From the judgment rendered, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The proceedings in this case were instituted by the tax commissioner of Marshall county for the purpose of having the assessment of the appellant, J. F. Hooper, as to his personal property, increased. The facts relating to the proceedings in the commissioners' court and the appeal to the circuit court, and the pleadings in the circuit court, are sufficiently shown in the opinion.

On the trial of the case in the circuit court, it was shown by the evidence that J. F. Hooper was engaged in the banking business; that the assessment referred to related to such business; that he, as an individual, owned and conducted a private bank; that upon Hooper's letter head it was stated that his bank had a capital of $50,000. The defendant as a witness, testified that he had only $25,000 invested in the bank; that $10,000 of this was in United States bonds. He further testified that there were time deposits and demand deposits in his bank. A statement taken from the books of the defendant's bank showed, under the head of assets, that on October 1, 1902, there were loans and assessments amounting to over $49,000, and that there were overdrafts amounting to about $1,800; that there was cash in the bank of nearly $6,900, and there was deposited with other banks $2,500.

This same statement showed under the head of liabilities, $25,000 capital, and time and demand deposits amounting to something over $32,000, and bills payable of $20,000. There was other evidence introduced tending to show that the loans and discounts of said bank ranged from $45,000 to $52,000.

In the court's oral charge to the jury, it instructed them among other things, as follows: "(a) All moneyed capital used by the defendant in his business--that is, all money lent, solvent credits, or credits of value, and all money used by him in said business in buying or discounting notes bonds, or bills of exchange--should have been assessed by him for taxation, whether it was his own money or money received by him on deposit from third persons to be repaid either on demand or at a specified time. (b) Bonds of the United States are not subject to taxation, but if they are used for the purpose of obtaining money and money is obtained on them which is used in making loans, and discounting notes, bonds or bills of exchange, such money is liable for taxation under the laws of Alabama as moneyed capital."

The defendant separately excepted to each of these parts of the court's oral charge, and also excepted to the court's refusal to give the following, among other written charges requested by the defendant: "(2) The court charges the jury that the amount of solvent credits of the defendant due to his bank is immaterial, if the capital stock did not exceed $25,000." "(4) The court charges the jury that if on October 1, 1902, the defendant was engaged in a general banking business, then the solvent credits of defendant belonging to and employed in said banking business are not an independent subject of taxation, but are material in ascertaining the value of the capital stock employed in said business on October 1, 1902. (5) The court charges the jury that if the defendant was on October 1, 1902, engaged in a general banking business, then the defendant cannot be taxed upon either demand or time deposits made by third persons in his bank." "(7) The court charges the jury that if the defendant was on October 1, 1902, engaged in a general banking business, then his property employed in such business cannot be taxed at a greater rate than the property of an incorporated bank engaged in the same business." "(9) The court charges the jury that the extension to incorporated banks of the right and privilege of being taxed only on the actual market value of the shares of its stock, entitled the individual citizen to the right to deduct from his solvent credits the amount of his indebtedness." "(13) The court charges the jury that from the amount of his solvent credits on October 1, 1902, the jury must deduct the amount of his capital stock which was at the time invested in United States bonds, if any. (14) The court charges the jury that under the constitutional provisions that the property of private individuals and corporations in this state shall be taxed at the same rate, and under the statutes making shareholders in incorporated banks taxable only on the actual market value of the shares of their capital stock, the individual citizen is entitled to deduct from his solvent credits the amount of his individual indebtedness."

From a judgment in favor of the state, as shown in the opinion, the defendant taxpayer prosecutes the present appeal, and assigns as error the rulings of the court upon the pleadings, and the giving of the portions of the oral charge, to which exceptions were reserved, and the refusal to give the several charges requested by the defendant.

Street & Isbell, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON, J. J. F.

Hooper, the defendant, returned for the year 1903 an assessment of personal property at $25,000. It consisted, as shown by the return, of "moneyed capital, that is, money lent, solvent credits, or credits of value, and all money employed in the business of advancing, or pending on any kind of chattels, choses in action, or personal property or used in buying or discounting notes, bonds or bills of exchange."

The tax commissioner objected to this assessment, as being less than the actual cash value of the property returned, and made an additional assessment which was returned to the commissioners' court, and notice thereof was given by him to the said J. F. Hooper, and the commissioners caused notice of the same to be issued and served on him. At the August term, 1903, the assessment by the tax commissioner was sustained. The order reads, "Ordered by the court, that the assessment be sustained as an additional assessment of $25,000, this August 12, 1903." Thereupon, the said Hooper appealed to the circuit court, executing an appeal and supersedeas bond.

When the case reached the circuit court, the state filed a complaint as follows: "On Appeal from the Commissioners' Court. Fall Term, 1903. Comes the state by its solicitor and alleges that the raised assessment of taxes made by T. M. Patterson, back tax commissioner of said county, on the 14th day of last July on the property of J. F Hooper, a copy of which is hereto attached, is just, true and correct." The defendant moved to quash the proceedings on several grounds, which were overruled. Thereupon, he demurred to the complaint, on grounds, substantially, that...