Meredith v. Elliott, No. 18475

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOSS; LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., and LEGGE
Citation147 S.E.2d 244,247 S.C. 335
PartiesT. C. MEREDITH and George W. Rogers, Respondents, v. Tom E. ELLIOTT, as Treasurer for Richland County, South Carolina, Appellant.
Decision Date11 March 1966
Docket NumberNo. 18475

Page 244

147 S.E.2d 244
247 S.C. 335
T. C. MEREDITH and George W. Rogers, Respondents,
v.
Tom E. ELLIOTT, as Treasurer for Richland County, South
Carolina, Appellant.
No. 18475.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 11, 1966.

[247 S.C. 336]

Page 245

Joseph D. Sapp, Columbia, for appellant.

[247 S.C. 337] Thomas E. McCutchen, D. Reece Williams, III, Columbia, for respondents.

MOSS, Acting Chief Justice.

T. C. Meredith and George W. Rogers, the respondents herein, brought this action against Tom E. Elliott, as Treasurer of Richland County, the appellant herein, under [247 S.C. 338] Section 65--2661 et seq., Code of 1962, to recover the sum of $206.88, with interest thereon, which had been paid under protest, being a part of the taxes assessed for the year 1962 against the property owned by them located in School District No. 1, Richland County, South Carolina. The respondents contend that the aforesaid taxes were wrongfully or illegally assessed and collected because an excessive and erroneous appraisal of the property was made by the tax assessor for the aforesaid district.

The record shows that the respondents were the owners of a tract of land containing 11.7 acres, upon which during the year 1961 two warehouses were erected. The tax assessor for Richland County appraised this property and placed a valuation thereon of $194,400.00 and, upon objection being made to such appraisal by the respondents, the assessor reappraised the property and reduced such to $174,000.00. Applying to this appraisal the assessment ratio applicable to all property in said School District No. 1 for the year 1962, the property was assessed at $16,200.00, which when multiplied by the fixed millage in said district resulted in a total property tax of $1,101.60. This is the tax paid under protest by the respondents.

It is the position of the respondents that the valuation of the aforesaid property should not exceed $144,333.17, this being the total sum invested by them in said property. It is further contended that upon this valuation the real property taxes for the year 1962 should have been $894.72, and hence they are entitled to a refund of $206.88, with interest thereon, as provided by law because of such illegal assessment and the collection of taxes thereon.

It is the position of the appellant that the property of the respondents was properly appraised and assessed for tax purposes pursuant to Sections 65--3645.1 et seq., Code of 1962, and the amount of taxes charged and collected upon said property was correct. It is also the position of the appellant that the respondents did not exhaust their administrative[247 S.C. 339] remedies by prosecuting an appeal from the assessment of their property for taxation, and not having done so they are precluded from maintaining this action.

This case came on for trial before the Honorable John Grimball, Presiding Judge, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the respondents for $206.88. At appropriate stages of the trial, the appellant made motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict in his favor. After the verdict for the respondents, the appellant made motions for judgment Non obstante veredicto and, in the alternative, for a new trial. These motions were refused and this appeal followed.

The appeal in this case can be disposed of by determining the question, posed by the respondents, of whether they had the right

Page 246

under Section 65--2661 and Section 65--2662 of the Code, to bring an action in the Court of Common Pleas against the appellant for the recovery of taxes based upon an assessment which followed an excessive appraisal.

The constitutional and statutory provisions here pertinent are as follows:

Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides:

'All property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value.'

Article III, Section 29 provides:

'All taxes upon property, real and personal, shall be laid upon the actual value of the property taxed, as the same shall be ascertained by an assessment made for the purpose of laying such tax.'

Article X, Section 1 provides:

'The General Assembly shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real, personal and possessory.'

Code Section 65--1648 provides:

'All property shall be valued for taxation at its true value in money, which * * * shall be held to be as [247 S.C. 340] follows, to wit: * * * and for real property, the usual selling price on the usual terms of similar property at sales for partition under the order of the court, at the place where the return is to be made. If there is no usual selling price, then such property shall be valued at what is honestly believed could be obtained for it at a fair sale under the conditions before mentioned.'

The General Assembly of this State, at its 1958 Session, enacted into law Act No. 952, 50 Stats. 1972, entitled 'An Act Relating To The Assessment Of Taxes In Richland County So As To Further Provide Therefor.' This Act became effective on July 1, 1958, and appears in the 1962 Code as Sections 65--3645.1 through 65--3645.8, inclusive. There was created by the cited statutes the Richland County Board of Assessment Control and a Tax Assessor for School District No. 1 of Richland County. The purpose of this legislation was to bring about the fair and equitable assessment of all taxable property within School District No. 1 of Richland County. The tax assessor for this taxing district was given:

'All powers, duties and privileges of the Board of Tax Assessors, Board of Township Assessors and Chairman of Board of Assessors, so far as they relate to the assessment and valuation of property in School District No. 1, shall be devolved upon the tax assessor subject, however, to policies as determined by the Board of Assessment Control for Richland County. * * *'

The tax assessor was given authority to:

'3. Fairly and impartially assess the value of all property, both real and personal, in School District No. 1, and enter it upon the returns and lists furnished the tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Newberry Mills, Inc. v. Dawkins, No. 19449
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 6, 1972
    ...Co., 249 S.C. 89, 152 S.E.2d 727 (1967). This rule applies to actions brought under Sections 65--2662 and 65--2663. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244 Plaintiff's coveted relief hinges upon the allegation that the valuation of its property was invalid since it was not the con......
  • Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Com'n, No. 0116
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 5, 1984
    ...seeking relief in [281 S.C. 83] the courts. Newberry Mills, Inc. v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190 S.E.2d 503 (1972); Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244 Since the enactment of the APA, the taxpayer has an additional avenue for seeking judicial review of an assessment. Code § 1-23-3......
  • City of Columbia v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., No. 18644
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 1967
    ...ordinance being a tax measure, its scope may not by implication be extended beyond the clear import of its language. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244; Adams v. Burts, 245 S.C. 339, 140 S.E.2d 586. Niagara contends that under this rule we should Page 676 construe Sections 3 ......
  • Edisto Fleets, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, No. 19251
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 7, 1971
    ...relating to taxation; they should be construed to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244; Adams v. Burts, 245 S.C. 339, 140 S.E.2d With the foregoing principles in mind, let us examine the 1955 amendment out of Page 717 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Newberry Mills, Inc. v. Dawkins, No. 19449
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 6, 1972
    ...Co., 249 S.C. 89, 152 S.E.2d 727 (1967). This rule applies to actions brought under Sections 65--2662 and 65--2663. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244 Plaintiff's coveted relief hinges upon the allegation that the valuation of its property was invalid since it was not the con......
  • Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Com'n, No. 0116
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 5, 1984
    ...seeking relief in [281 S.C. 83] the courts. Newberry Mills, Inc. v. Dawkins, 259 S.C. 7, 190 S.E.2d 503 (1972); Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244 Since the enactment of the APA, the taxpayer has an additional avenue for seeking judicial review of an assessment. Code § 1-23-3......
  • City of Columbia v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., No. 18644
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 1967
    ...ordinance being a tax measure, its scope may not by implication be extended beyond the clear import of its language. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244; Adams v. Burts, 245 S.C. 339, 140 S.E.2d 586. Niagara contends that under this rule we should Page 676 construe Sections 3 ......
  • Edisto Fleets, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, No. 19251
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 7, 1971
    ...relating to taxation; they should be construed to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147 S.E.2d 244; Adams v. Burts, 245 S.C. 339, 140 S.E.2d With the foregoing principles in mind, let us examine the 1955 amendment out of Page 717 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT