Leaf Hotel Corporation v. City of Hattiesburg

• Decision Date: 13 November 1933
• Docket Number: 30800
• Citation: 168 Miss. 304,150 So. 779
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LEAF HOTEL CORPORATION v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG

150 So. 779

168 Miss. 304

LEAF HOTEL CORPORATION v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG

No. 30800

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 13, 1933

Division B

1 TAXATION.

Statute exempting permanent additions to existing hotels from taxation must be strictly construed against exemption and most favorably to taxing power (Laws 1924, c. 347).

2 TAXATION.

Claimant of exemption from taxation has burden of showing clearly right thereto, and all reasonable doubts must be resolved against him.

3 STATUTES.

In construing statute, manifest, unthought-of results should be avoided if possible, especially it injustice results, and unwise purpose will not be imputed to Legislature when reasonable construction is possible.

4. TAXATION. Fourth story added to existing three-story Hotel held not "permanent addition" within tax exemption statute (Laws 1924, chapter 347).

Laws 1924, chapter 347, provides, in part, that "all permanent hotels, and all permanent additions to existing hotels," may be granted a tax exemption.

HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Forrest county, HON. W. J. PACK, Judge.

Proceedings by the city of Hattiesburg, for fixing the value of the property of the Leaf Hotel Corporation for purposes of taxation. From a judgment of the circuit court, on appeal from a decision of the Mayor and the Commissioners of the city, in favor of the city, the taxpayer appeals. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

Sullivan & Sullivan, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Section 1394, chapter 22, volume one, Mississippi Code Annotated, 1930, says:-- "All words and phrases contained in the statute are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning, but technical words according to their technical meaning."

In chapter 347, Laws 1924, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the word "addition" was not used in its common and ordinary acceptation and meaning.

Addition means something added.

Webster's New International Dictionary.

Century Dictionary defines the word "addition" as: "Super-addition, appendage, adjuct, increase, enlargement, argumentation."

1 Words and Phrases, 4th series, 92; Atkins v. Boardman (Mass.), 2 Met. 457, 37 Am. Dec. 100.

We call to the court's attention the case of State v. Butler County, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 118, in which it was said that the word "addition" in a statute requiring county commissioners to advertise for proposals for the erection of any public building or any addition thereto would include the installation of an elevator in a courthouse.

It is our contention that the use of the word "addition" in the statute so obviously was used in its common and ordinary acceptation and meaning, and therefore meant adding to an existing hotel either by building to it laterally or by building new stories on top of it, that there was no occasion to search elsewhere for another meaning.

A statute is not to be read as if open to construction as a matter of course. It is only in the case of ambiguous statutes of uncertain meaning that the rules of construction can have any application.

25 R. C. L., pp. 957-958, par. 213; 25 R. C. L., p. 961, par. 217; State v. J. J. Newman Lumber Company, 103 Miss. 263.

In construing statutes, the chief aim of the courts should be to reach the real intention of the Legislature. A construction which will bring about manifestly unthought of and unjust results will be avoided, if possible, and if necessary to avoid such results, the courts will widen or narrow the letter of the statute.

Canal Bank & Trust Company v. Brewer, 114 So. 127; Huber v. Freret, 103 So. 3.

If the act was not passed simply to encourage building of new hotels, and the permanent enlargement of existing hotels, as a necessary measure to promote ample hotel accommodations for the travelling public in Mississippi, for what other conceivable purpose could it have been passed?

If the Legislature made it possible for municipalities and boards of supervisors to allow the exemption of permanent additions to existing hotels for the purpose of encouraging ample hotel accommodations, what conceivable difference then could it have made to the Legislature whether such additions were made by building them along side of the existing hotel or whether they were built on top of the existing hotel?

R. W. Heidelberg, of Stevens & Heidelberg, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.

The law imposes upon the complainant in this case the duty of showing affirmatively that the property in question is clearly within the terms of the exemption statute, as it is the universal law that one claiming an exemption from taxation assumes the burden of showing that he is entitled to it.

Morris Ice Co. v. Adams, 75 Miss. 410, 22 So. 944.

Statutes of exemption from taxation must be strictly construed, and the language employed must be construed most favorably to the state.

Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 65 Miss. 563, 5 So. 108; Greenville Ice & Coal Co. v. City of Greenville, 69 Miss. 86, 10 So. 574; State v. Simmons, 70 Miss. 485, 12 So. 477.

The party pleading exemption from taxation was imposed upon him the burden of clearly showing his title to the immunity claimed, and if his right may be fairly said to remain in doubt, the claim must be denied.

New Standard Club v. McGowen, 111. Miss. 92, 71, So. 289; Greenville Ice & Coal Co. v. City of Greenville, 69 Miss. 86; Brick & Lumber Co. v. Miller, 123 Miss. 850, 86 So. 579; Adams County v. National Box Co., 125 Miss. 598, 88 So. 168; Barnes, Sheriff, v. Jones, 139 Miss. 675, 103 So. 773; Board of Supervisors v. Merck & Alston, 153 Miss. 346, 120 So. 839; Building & Loan Association v. City of Gulfport, 155 Miss. 498, 124 So. 658.

It is appellee's contention that the putting of the fourth story on the then existing three story brick building, which, among other things, involved the removal of the then existing roof and other changes in the three story building, was an alteration and not an addition within the meaning of the statute.

The character of addition covered by this exemption statute must of necessity be a lateral addition, one that occupies ground without the limits of the building to which it constitutes an addition.

Updike v. Skillman, 27 N. J. Law (3 Dutch.) 131: Perrine v. Parker, 34 N. J. Law (5 Vroom) 352.

Argued orally by W. C. Sullivan, for appellant.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

This is an appeal by the Leaf Hotel Corporation from a judgment of the circuit court of Forrest county fixing the value of its property for taxation in the city of Hattiesburg. The hotel corporation being dissatisfied with the assessment as fixed by the mayor and commissioners of the city appealed therefrom to the circuit court; there the cause was tried before judge and jury resulting in a verdict fixing the various items of property owned by appellant, subject to taxation, upon which verdict a judgment was accordingly rendered. The judgment ascertained and fixed the amount of taxes due, based upon the city levy, and was against the hotel corporation and the sureties on its appeal bond. The judgment was also for the statutory damages and costs.

The only question in the case is whether or not appellant's entire hotel building was subject to taxes, or whether the fourth story of the building was exempt therefrom? If the fourth story was exempt, the judgment should be reversed; if it was not exempt, the judgment should be affirmed.

In 1927 the Hotel Mitchell owned the lot and hotel...