Knox v. Southern Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1926
• Docket Number: 25713
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: KNOX, ATTY. GEN., v. SOUTHERN PAPER CO. [*]

108 So. 288

143 Miss. 870

KNOX, ATTY. GEN., v. SOUTHERN PAPER CO. ^[*]

No. 25713

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 10, 1926

Division B

1 PLEADING. Court should require bill of particulars whenever in progress of suit defendant is placed in such situation that justice cannot be done at trial without aid of bill of particulars (Hemingway's Code, section 546).

Under Hemingway's Code, section 546, the court should require bill of particulars, pointing out foundation of plaintiff's claim, when in progress of suit defendant is placed in such situation that justice cannot be done at trial without aid of bill of particulars.

2 PLEADING. Statute authorizing bill of particulars applies to all causes in circuit courts brought originally as well as to causes on appeal from justices of the peace or other inferior tribunals, which are to be tried de novo (Hemingway's Code, section 546).

Hemingway's Code, section 546, authorizing court to order bill of particulars under certain circumstances, applies to all character of causes in circuit courts brought originally in that court as well as all causes that come there by appeal from justices of the peace or other inferior tribunals, which are to be tried de novo.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Taxation. Constitutional requirement that property be assessed at its true value must be sacrificed rather than requirement that assessment shall be uniform and equal, otherwise it would deprive taxpayer of equal protection guaranteed by federal Constitution (Constitution 1890, section 112; Federal Constitution, Amendment 14).

If in assessing property for taxes either requirement in Constitution 1890, section 112, that property be assessed at its true value, or requirement that its assessment be uniform and equal, is to be sacrified, it must be the former and not the latter, as otherwise it would deprive taxpayer of equal protection of law guaranteed by Federal Constitution Amendment 14.

4 EVIDENCE.

It is matter of common knowledge that assessing officers of state systematically and universally assess property at lower level than its true value.

5 PLEADING. Petition on appeal from order approving assessment of personal property, setting out amount of assessment with copy of assessment, held sufficient bill of particulars, since just value as compared with assessment of like property is determined from taxpayer's entire assessment (Laws 1918, chapter 120).

On appeal under Laws 1918, chapter 120, from order of board of supervisors approving assessment of personal property, petition setting out amount of assessment and alleging undervaluation, together with copy of assessment, held sufficient bill of particulars, especially at beginning of trial, since equalization boards in determining just value as compared with assessment of like property determine question on view of taxpayer's entire assessment.

HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jackson county, HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.

Proceeding before the board of supervisors of Jackson county relative to approval of an assessment of the personal property of the Southern Paper Company. From an order of approval, Rush H. Knox, as attorney-general, appealed under Laws 1918, chapter 120, and from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining the Southern Paper Company's motion for a bill of particulars and dismissing the appeal, the attorney-general appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

J. L. Byrd, Assistant Attorney-General, and E. C. Sharp, for appellant.

This is an appeal from the personal assessment of the Southern Paper Company, Incorporated, filed by Rush H. Knox, Attorney-General, under the authority of chapter 20, Laws of 1918. The defendant filed a motion asking that the attorney-general be required to file a bill of particulars, more fully itemizing and particularizing the items for which claim was made and asking that the attorney-general be required to set out in detail what valuation the plaintiff claimed should be put on the various items of property and to specify whether or not said property should be assessed at its full value or at a proportionate value commensurate with the value of other personal property in the county of Jackson, state of Mississippi. This motion was sustained.

The attorney-general in open court declined to do so, thereupon the appeal was dismissed and from the judgment of the court dismissing said appeal this appeal is prosecuted. The statute governing appeals of this character and defining the duty of the court is so plain and this court has spoken so emphatically upon what the duties of the trial judge are in cases of this kind that we are at a loss to understand upon what theory the trial judge sustained the motion of defendants. Robinson Land & Lumber Co. v. Roberson, Attorney-General, 89 So. 160; Attorney-General v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 103 So. 11.

In every instance in which the court has spoken in regard to these appeals it has held that the case is tried de novo in the circuit court. This brings us then to the question: How is an assessment or a contest over an assessment made originally? See section 6, chapter 323, Laws of 1920. When the assessment rolls are equalized and corrected by the board of supervisors, the board is required to equalize the assessment and may increase or diminish the valuation of any property, and it is the duty of the board of supervisors to so increase or diminish the valuation of any item or piece of property so that property of the same value shall be assessed for an equal sum and no one, not even the learned judge in the court below ever heard of a board of supervisors being required to file a bill of particulars setting out all matters demanded in the motion on file in this case. On the contrary, see section 15, chapter 323, Laws of 1920.

It is, therefore, contended by the attorney-general that the court has no right to require him to furnish a bill of particulars, but on the contrary the attorney-general in order to present the facts to the court properly and to establish the true value of the property in question had a right by proper motion to require the defendant in the court below to produce all books, papers, records and memoranda which would show, or tend to show, or inform the court as to the true value of the property to be assessed and upon a failure of the defendant to produce its books, it could not be heard to complain of any assessment rendered. Robertson, Rev.-Agt., v. Greenwood Lumber Co., 127 Miss. 793; Assurance Society v. Clark, 80 Miss. 471, 31 So. 964.

Ford, White, Graham & Gautier, for appellee.

The sole point involved is the correctness vel non of the court's action in requiring a bill of particulars. The sole pleadings filed at any time by the attorney-general was the petition before the board of supervisors. At no time did the attorney-general inform the board of supervisors, the circuit court, the Southern Paper Company, or any of its representatives as to what items of assessment he objected to, or what valuation he contended should be put on the property, nor did he furnish any information of any kind.

We can only infer that the attorney-general claimed the right to review the whole assessment, thus converting the circuit court into an assessing board. On the other hand, we know and the court knows that the attorney-general did not intend to challenge the correctness of every item appearing on the assessment.

I. The practical necessity of a bill of particulars being furnished in a case of this kind. The Southern Paper Company was assessed with personal property to the amount of eight hundred thirty-two thousand eight hundred ninety dollars. This total was made up of a number of items set forth. This was an unusually large assessment and was made up of a large number of items. As a practical proposition, we may conservatively state that it would probably have taken a week or more to have gone fully into the question of whether or not the various items embracing this assessment were correctly valued. The court knows that it would have been almost an endless job to go through the affairs of a large enterprise of this sort, and thus ascertain the precise value of all the property appearing on the roll. Both the court and appellee were entitled to know if the attorney-general expected to contest the correctness of all these valuations, and we will assume at this point that the attorney-general did have the right to question the valuation of each item. If this was his purpose, he should have so informed the court as requested by the motion.

On the other hand, we know as a matter of reason and of common sense that it was not the purpose of the attorney-general to go into the correctness of the valuation of all the items appearing on the roll. If he was dealing honestly with the board of supervisors and the court in taking this appeal, he knew, or had in mind, that there were some items on the Southern Paper Company assessment which were undervalued. If he did not know this, he was trifling with the court and acting unfairly in taking the appeal. It would have been easy, therefore, for him to advise the court and appellee just what he objected to and what valuation he contended for, and the issues could have been so narrowed that the case could have been tried with moderate consumption of time.

Having considered the practical necessity and propriety of a bill of particulars or further information as to what the attorney-general was contending for in this case, let us see what the law is on the subject of bills of particulars. See section 763, Code of 1906. Under that section is cited the celebrated case of Tilton v. Beacher, 17 Am. Rep., 337, 59 N.Y. 176.

The general rule is that the assessment...