Marathon Lumber Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 20 April 1925
• Docket Number: 24886
• Citation: 103 So. 798,139 Miss. 125
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MARATHON LUMBER CO. v. STATE et al. [*]

103 So. 798

139 Miss. 125

MARATHON LUMBER CO. v. STATE et al. ^[*]

No. 24886

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 20, 1925

Division B

1 TAXATION. Entering order of state tax commission approving rolls certified to it by board on minutes is final assessment from which taxpayer can appeal.

Where the board of supervisors, acting under chapter 323, Laws of 1920, equalizes the assessment roll between the taxpayers of the county, and overrules the exceptions to such equalization by the taxpayer, and certifies the footings of the several columns of the assessment rolls to the tax commission of the state as required by the act, and the state tax commission approves the roll without change, and the board of supervisors enters the order of the tax commission approving such rolls on the minutes of the board, it is a final assessment, from which an appeal may be prosecuted by the taxpayer.

2 TAXATION. Assessment rolls ordered to be changed by state tax commission does not become final, until approved by board of supervisors.

In such case where the tax commission orders a change to be made in the assessment roll, it does not become final until the board has complied with the order of the tax commission, and approved the roll after such changes.

HON. W L. CRANFORD, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Smith county, HON. W. L. CRANFORD Judge.

Tax assessment proceeding before the board of supervisors of Smith county, in which the Marathon Lumber Company appealed to the circuit court from an order of the board overruling objections. From an order dismissing the appeal, the Lumber Company appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Deavours & Hilbun and Hughes, Nobles & Lane, for appellant.

Section 81, Code of 1906 (Hemingway's Code, sec. 61), provides that any taxpayer who feels aggrieved at his assessment, may appeal from any decision of the board of supervisors to the circuit court. Section 10, chapter 323, Laws of 1920, provides that any taxpayer who feels aggrieved at any action of the board of supervisors with reference to his assessment may appeal to the circuit court "within five days after the adjournment of the meeting at which equalization of assessments is made, or within five days after the adjournment of the meeting at which assessments are finally corrected in accordance with instructions of the state tax commission, or within five days after the adjournment of the board of supervisors at which the approval of the roll by the state tax commission is entered, at his option."

This court in the case of Moller-Vanderboom Lumber Company v. The Board of Supervisors of Attala County, 99 So. 823, limits the time that an aggrieved taxpayer may appeal from his assessment to the circuit court by holding that the manner in which appeals are to be prosecuted, are to be regulated and controlled by section 81, Code of 1906 (Hemingway's Code, par. 61), and section 10, chapter 323 (Laws of 1920), construed together.

This court specifically held that to avoid confusion resulting from appeals from the different orders of the board of supervisors, that appeals would lie only from the final order of the board. The question that confronts us, therefore, is whether either of the appeals in the instant case is from a final order of the board of supervisors of Smith county. The trial court held that neither of the appeals was from a final order of the board of supervisors, and that the taxpayers could not appeal to the circuit court except from an order of the board entering the approval of the completed roll by the state tax commission. We think the court was in error.

The second appeal here filed by appellant on the 15th day of October, 1924, prayed for an appeal from the order of the board of supervisors entering and carrying out the instructions of the state tax commission after the state tax commission had examined the recapitulations. It is true that no increase or decrease was ordered by the state tax commission, but the approval of the recapitulation by the state tax commission, and its order directing the board of supervisors to make up the roll accordingly was a final order and not an interlocutory order.

It therefore follows that after the board of supervisors entered this certificate of the state tax commission at its regular October meeting that no further change of appellant's assessment could be legally made by the board of supervisors. We submit, therefore, that appellant appealed from a final order of the board when it filed its appeal bond on the 15th day of October, 1924, and that this court in the Moller-Vanderboom Lumber Company case, supra, so holds. See, also, State v. Wheatley, 113 Miss. 555, 74 So. 427.

The more recent Moller-Vanderboom Lumber Company case was from an order of the board receiving and carrying out the instructions of the state tax commission after its examination of the recapitulation of the assessment filed with it. This court held that this was a final order and could be appealed from to the circuit court. Appellant's appeal filed on the 15th day of October, 1924, corresponds exactly to this last appeal of the Moller-Vanderboom Lumber Company, and if in that case the appellant appealed from a final order, then in the instant case appellant appealed from a final order.

The ruling of the lower court in dismissing these appeals and retaining jurisdiction for the purpose of assessing damages was manifestly wrong, and this case should be reversed and remanded.

Tullos & Martin and H. M. McIntosh, for appellees.

Section 81, Code of 1906, Hemingway's Code, section 61, and chapter 323 of the Laws of 1920, must be construed together under Moller-Vanderboom Lumber Company v. Board of Supervisors of Attala County, 99 So. 823. Under the provisions of section 10, chapter 323 of the Laws of 1920, the board of supervisors are supposed to receive from the tax commission the notification provided for in section 9 and prepare to return to the state tax commission on or before the first Monday of November following, the completed roll for inspection and under section 12 of said act, the state tax commission is required to examine the roll and return to the board of supervisors for correction, it being the contemplation of said act that the roll, as finally made, might be approved by the board of supervisors at its November meeting.

It is the contention of appellee that the board of supervisors in receiving the notification from the state tax commission at its October meeting, provided for by section 9 of chapter 323 of the Laws of 1920, without comment and without entering any order, was not a final approval of the roll...