Magnolia Bank v. Board of Sup'rs of Pike County

• Decision Date: 23 October 1916
• Docket Number: 18976
• Citation: 111 Miss. 857,72 So. 697
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MAGNOLIA BANK v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIKE COUNTY

72 So. 697

111 Miss. 857

MAGNOLIA BANK v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIKE COUNTY

No. 18976

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 23, 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Pike county, HON. J. B. HOLDEN Judge.

Petition by the Magnolia Bank to the board of supervisors of Pike county, objecting to an assessment against it for taxation. The board of supervisors overruled the objection and the bank appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to and dismissing the petition the bank appeals.

Appellant presented its petition to the board of supervisors of Pike county, objecting to the assessment against it for taxation for the year 1915, and praying that its assessment be reduced from seventy-six thousand dollars to forty-three thousand six hundred thirty-six dollars and sixty-six cents. The petition in substance, avers that the capital stock of appellant, in the sum of fifty-five thousand dollars, is assessed at par and that this valuation is augmented or increased by the surplus and undivided profits, less real estate, in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars, making a total valuation of its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits, seventy-six thousand dollars, from which is deducted real estate valued at ten thousand five hundred forty-five dollars; that this assessment is excessive, and if approved will force appellant to pay taxes at a rate in excess of taxes paid by other "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens in the county of Pike, where said bank is located;" that the tax assessor of Pike county, in making the assessment, did "systematically and intentionally" assess the property of appellant at full market or par value of the shares augmented by surplus and undivided profits, while assessing other property for taxes in said county at sixty-six cents on the dollar; that this method of assessing appellant at full value, and other taxable property at sixty-six cents on the dollar, is in violation of section 181 of the Constitution of Mississippi, and also is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, in that it denies objector the equal protection of the law. The prayer of the petition is that the assessment of appellant's bank should be reduced to conform to other valuations placed upon real and personal property in Pike county. The board of supervisors overruled the objections and denied the relief sought; and appeal was prosecuted from the order of the board to the circuit court, in accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the Code. On the trial of the case anew in the circuit court, demurrer was interposed to the petition and sustained by the court. From the order sustaining the demurrer to and dismissing the petition, appellant has appealed to this court; and in the presentation of the case, counsel for appellant invokes section 112 of our Constitution, as well as section 181 thereof, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is the contention of appellant that the method adopted by the taxing authorities of Pike county, as set forth in the petition, violates the equality and uniformity clause of our state Constitution, and denies appellant due process of law, in violation of the Federal Constitution.

Affirmed.

Mayes & Mayes, L. Brame and Moody & Williams, for appellant.

Geo. H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

It is conceded by appellant that the shares of its capital stock, augmented by surplus and undivided profits, are worth the amount at which the stock is assessed. It may be here observed, also, that the petition makes no complaint at the valuation of the bank's real estate, and no relief is sought against the assessment of its realty. The contention, briefly stated, is simply this: Appellant admits that its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits are worth seventy-six thousand dollars. This is the true value and the value upon which the Constitution and statutes of our state contemplate taxes shall be paid. The bank, while conceding that it is under the primary obligation to pay taxes upon this valuation, yet seeks a reduction of thirty-four per cent. because it says that real estate and taxable personal property owned by individual citizens of the county of Pike are being systematically assessed at sixty-six cents on the dollar, or, in other words, individual citizens, by and with the consent of the board, are paying on assessments much lower that the law requires and the government exacts. Does the petition of the bank, then, state a legal cause for complaint? Section 181 of our Constitution provides:

"The property of all private corporations for pecuniary gain shall be taxed in the same way and to the same extent as the property of individuals, but the legislature may provide for the taxation of banks and banking capital, by taking the shares according to the value thereof (augmented by the accumulations, surplus, and unpaid dividends), exclusive of real estate, which shall be taxed as other real estate."

Section 112 of our Constitution provides:

"The legislature may provide for a special mode of valuation and assessment for railroads, and railroad and other corporate property . . . But all such property shall be assessed at its true value," etc.

By these express provisions of the Constitution the legislature is authorized to place banks and banking capital in a class to themselves, and to adopt a method of assessment which the framers of our organic law thought equitable and just. In pursuance of this constitutional authority the legislature has enacted section 4273, Code 1906, requiring the president, cashier, or other officer to make out and deliver to the assessor a written statement under oath of the number and amount of all shares of the capital stock paid in; the amount of undivided profits, surplus, or accumulations of any sort, exclusive of real estate; the value of each share, estimated at par and increased by the surplus or accumulations; and stipulating that banks shall be assessed in conformity with the plan suggested and the authority expressly conferred by section 181 of the Constitution. We assume that appellant, in accordance with the statute, executed the written statement provided for, and upon this statement the assessor placed upon the assessment roll of Pike county a perfectly lawful assessment of appellant's bank.

Counsel frankly admit that if the relief prayed for in this case is granted, appellant will not pay in accordance with the literal provisions of section 181 of the Constitution, but contend that section 112, providing that "taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state," and that "property shall be assessed for taxes under general laws, and by uniform rules, according to its true value," and the further provisions of section 181 that "the property of all private corporations for pecuniary gain shall be taxed in the same way and to the same extent as the property of individuals," justify and demand the relief sought. Some of the authorities cited by counsel from other states apparently justify their contention, but each case is largely controlled by the specific language of the Constitution of the state under which the case arises. The rights of appellant in the present case are of course, measured and controlled by our own Constitution, and, looking to the express provisions of both sections 112 and 181, the legislature is authorized to provide a special mode of assessment of banks and banking capital, and when appellant has been assessed in accordance with this method it has no complaint to register. There is no intimation of any discrimination as between banks or banking capital. All banks in Mississippi are assessed exactly alike, and all pay the same rate of taxation. They all do business in accordance with and are protected by the laws of our state. The method adopted for their assessment as compared with the method of assessing individuals, is highly favorable to the banks. This provision, so favorable to banks, has already been alluded to by our court in Bank v. Oxford, 70 Miss. 504, 12 So. 203, where...