Locke v. L. N. Dantzler Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1919
• Docket Number: 20535
• Citation: 119 Miss. 783,81 So. 175
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LOCKE, TAX COLLECTOR, v. L. N. DANTZLER LUMBER CO

81 So. 175

119 Miss. 783

LOCKE, TAX COLLECTOR, v. L. N. DANTZLER LUMBER CO

No. 20535

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 10, 1919

1 HIGHWAYS.Improvement.Acreage tax.Constitutionality.

An acreage tax of two cents an acre levied by the board of supervisors on all land In a county as a special road tax under Laws 1916, chapter 172, section 2, amendingLaws 1912 chapter 258, andLaws 1910, chapter 150, Is not vlolative of Constitution, section 112, requiring taxation to be uniform and equal and property to be taxed in proportion to its value; and such tax being for local improvement and not for the purpose of raising general revenue, section 112 of the Constitution is not applicable.

2 HIGHWAY.Improvement.Acreage tax.Presumption.

The apportionment of a special tax levied by the board of supervisors under Laws 1916, chapter 172, section 2, amendingLaws 1912, chapter 258, andLaws 1910, chapter 150, by levying an acreage tax of two cents an acre on all land in the county will be presumed just.

HON. J H. NEVILLE, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Stone county, HON. J. H. NEVILLE, Judge.

Action by L. N. Dantzler Lumber Company against J. C. Locke, tax collector.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

No brief of counsel for either side found in the record.

Reversed.

W. C. Batson, for appellant.

White & Ford, for appellee.

OPINION

SYKES, J.

The appellee lumber company filed suit in the circuit court of Stone county against the tax collector of that county to recover the sum of two hundred, sixty dollars and ninety-six cents taxes paid by it under protest to the tax collector.This tax was an acreage tax of two cents an acre levied on all the land in Stone county.Appellee owns thirteen thousand and forty acres in this county.The declaration alleges that the board of supervisors has levied this acreage tax as a special road tax under the authority of chapter 172, Laws of 1916, amending chapter 258, Laws of 1912, andchapter 150, Laws of 1910.The declaration challenges the constitutionality, under section 112 of the Constitution, of this acreage tax for road purposes.There was a demurrer interposed to the declaration which was overruled by the lower court.The defendant declining to plead further, judgment final was rendered in favor of the lumber company, from which judgment this appeal is here prosecuted.

Chapter 172, Laws of 1916, sections 7155-7157, inclusive, of Hemingway's Code, provides an additional method for working the public roads of a county or beat thereof.Section 2 provides how the board may raise funds for working the roads and building bridges, and, among other things the board is authorized to have collected by the tax collector an ad valorem tax on the assessed valuation of the property, or an acreage tax, or both.

It is contended by the appellee that this acreage road tax is unconstitutional because it is violative of section 112 of the Constitution, in that it is not uniform and equal, and that the property is not taxed in proportion to its value.The contention is urged that this is not an ad valorem tax and therefore violates section 112 of the Constitution.Reliance is had by the appellee on the cases of Thompson v. Kreutzer,112 Miss. 165, 72 So. 891, andThompson v. McLeod,112 Miss. 383, 73 So. 193, L.R.A. 1918C 893, Ann. Cas. 1918A 674.The taxes attempted to be collected in these two cases were taxes for general revenue purposes, and were held to be violative of this section of the Constitution.In this case, if section 112 of the Constitution were applicable, then this acreage tax would be unconstitutional because property is not here taxed in proportion to its value.The difference, however, between the cases relied upon by the appellee and the case under consideration, is that this is a special road tax for a road district.The county in this case is the road district.It is a tax for a local improvement of this road district.It is not a tax for the purpose of raising the general revenue of the county to defray its expenses, but a special tax going to defray the improvements made on the roads in this district.Or it may be termed a tax for a local betterment or improvement.It is a tax similar in all respects to the levee tax held constitutional in the case of Daily v. Swope, Guardian,47 Miss. 367.In that casethe court, speaking through SIMRALL, J., fully discusses the question of taxation for raising revenue generally, and taxation for local betterments or improvements.

Section 20, art. 12, of the Constitution of Mississippi of 1869, is similar to section 112 of the present Constitution.In the Daily Case the court says:

"'Taxation,' as used in the twentieth section, means such taxation as is imposed by the legislature for the uses of the state at large, or the county. . . .The convention sought to devise a rule by which taxation, imposed for the general and ordinary expenses of the state, county administrations, should operate equally in all parts of the state.No discriminations shall be made which would disturb uniformity."

Again:

"There has grown up in this and the other states a species of taxation which is quite distinguishable from that meant in the twentieth section.It is the imposition on property of an assessment, in a defined locality, to make some local improvement supposed by the legislature to be specially beneficial to a class of property.The property thus benefitted is charged with the expense, whilst other property is exempt.Such legislation proceeds on the theory that the burdened property is enhanced in value, and the owners are benefitted over and above the other inhabitants.If the constitutional restriction applies to such local assessments, it is plain that they cannot be sustained. . . .

"We find that, going back to the earliest colonial times, and thence through the history of these states, there have existed...