Miller v. Board of County Commissioners of Natrona County

• Decision Date: 24 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 2880,2880
• Citation: 337 P.2d 262,79 Wyo. 502
• Parties: W. C. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF The COUNTY OF NATRONA, Defendant.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 262

337 P.2d 262

79 Wyo. 502

W. C. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF The COUNTY OF NATRONA, Defendant.

No. 2880.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 24, 1959.

John J. McIntyre and Harden & Harden, Casper, for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

Thomas O. Miller, Atty. Gen., Sterling A. Case, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Glenn A. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., amici curiae.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER and HARNSBERGER, JJ.

Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

The taxation statutes passed by the legislative assembly of the Territory of Wyoming provided for some exemptions ¹ which subsequent legislatures have broadened to include certain property of honorably discharged veterans. In 1917 the legislature extended this exemption to include property to the amount of $2,000 in assessed valuation of honorably discharged veterans of the Civil War. In 1921 this was extended to veterans of the Spanish-American War and World War I. Subsequent legislation has included veterans of other wars. The legislature by c. 175, S.L. of Wyoming 1955, sought to limit the tax benefits both as to individuals participating and the maximum amount to be allowed. The instant appeal, growing out of these limitations, is presented without pleadings, the trial court certifying constitutional questions raised by the following agreed facts:

W. C. Miller, a bona fide resident of Wyoming and an honorably discharged veteran of World War I, owned real property in Casper on which was levied 1956 taxes of $256.97. He filed for veterans' tax exemption but having previously received a tax benefit of more than $800 under the provisions of § 32-102, W.C.S.1945, he was denied exemption, the allowance of which would have reduced his taxes to $152.83 ($104.14 less than that demanded). He paid the full amount and brought suit for the $104.14, urging that c. 175 was unconstitutional. The portions of the statute said by him to be germane are:

'Section 1. Paragraph Fifth, Section 32-102, Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1945, as amended by Sections 1 and 2, Chapter 17, Session Laws of Wyoming, Special Session, 1946, as amended and re-enacted by Section 1, Chapter 129, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1951, as amended and re-enacted by Section 1, Chapter 151, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1953, be amended and re-enacted to read as follows: [The following described property is hereby exempted from taxation:]

'Fifth. Subject to the limitations provided herein and the requirements for proof of entitlement herein the property of the following persons to the amount of $2,000 in assessed valuation during any year:

'(a) Each honorably discharged veteran including nurses, of the Civil War, Indian Wars, the Spanish American War, the Filipino Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Puerto Rico Campaign and the First World War, who was a resident of Wyoming on or before March 1, 1955;

* * *

* * *

'(d) The widow, during her widowhood, of any person described in subsections (a), (b), or (c) above; and the widow, during her widowhood, of those members of such military forces who died while serving honorably therein.

'The tax exemption provided by this subsection is declared to be a bonus for service in the military forces of the United States, the total tax benefit shall not exceed Eight Hundred ($800.00) Dollars for any war emergency herein enumerated, from which the claimant was last honorably discharged, and the following limitations shall apply to all claimants:

* * *

* * *

'(3.) That the claimant, since the date of his last honorable discharge from the military forces of the United States has received a tax benefit of less than $800.00, under the provisions of Section 32-102, Fifth, Wyoming Compiled Statutes of 1945, and the amendments thereto adopted as Chapter 17, Session Laws 1946, (Spec.Sess.), Chapter 129, Session Laws 1951, Chapter 151, Session Laws 1953, and this Act.

'(4.) The total amount of the tax benefit which the claimant has been informed and believes he has received since the date of his last honorable discharge from the military forces of the United States. Provided, however, that the tax benefit limitation shall not apply to widows of veterans, during their widowhood, nor to the veterans and widows of veterans during their widowhood, of the Spanish American War.'

The trial court under the provisions of c. 3, art. 55, W.C.S.1945, certified as difficult and important constitutional questions the following:

Question 1: Do the provisions of c. 175, S.L. of Wyoming, 1955, violate Art. 1, § 3, Constitution of Wyoming, reading:

'Since equality in the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than individual incompetency, or unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction.'

Question 2: Do the provisions of c. 175, violate Art. 1, § 28, reading 'No tax shall be imposed without the consent of the people or their authorized representatives. All taxation shall be equal and uniform.'

Question 3: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 1, § 34, reading:

'All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.'

Question 4: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 1, § 35, reading:

'No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be made.'

Question 5: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 3, § 20, reading:

'No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended on its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.'

Question 6: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 3, § 24, reading:

'No bill, except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject is embraced in any act which is not expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.'

Question 7: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 3, § 27 insofar as it relates to (1) the granting to any association or individual of any special or exclusive privilege or immunity; (2) the relinquishing or extinguishing of the indebtedness, liabilities or obligation of any person to the State or to any municipal corporation; and (3) the exempting of property from taxation. As relevant to this question, § 27 reads:

'The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * for the assessment or collection of taxes; * * * refunding money paid into the state treasury, relinquishing or extinguishing, in whole or part, the indebtedness, liabilities or obligation of any corporation or person to this state or to any municipal corporation therein; exempting property from taxation * * *.'

Question 8: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 3, § 36, reading:

'No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association.'

Question 9: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 15, § 11, reading:

'All property, except as in this constitution otherwise provided, shall be uniformly assessed for taxation, and the legislature shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal.'

Question 10: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 15, § 12, reading:

'The property of the United States, the state, counties, cities, towns, school districts, municipal corporations and public libraries, lots with the buildings thereon used exclusively for religious worship, church parsonages, public cemeteries, shall be exempt from taxation, and such other property as the legislature may by general law provide.'

Question 11: Do the provisions of c. 175 violate Art. 16, § 6, reading:

'Neither the state nor any county, city, township, town, school district, or any other political sub-division, shall loan or give its credit or make donations to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, except for necessary support of the poor, nor subscribe to or become the owner of the capital stock of any association or corporation. The state shall not engage in any work of internal improvement unless authorized by a two-thirds vote of the people.'

Plaintiff points out distinctions made by the statute, urging in effect the following unwarranted discriminations:

(a) Veterans of the first World War and prior wars who became residents of Wyoming prior to March 1, 1955, are entitled to the benefits of the Act but those coming to the State after that date are not.

(b) The $800 limitation does not apply to Spanish-American War veterans or to widows of all veterans.

(c) The statute benefits only those veterans who are property owners.

His argument is addressed to four different bases of the statute's alleged unconstitutionality. (He abandons a fifth group of three questions.) These should perhaps be here listed although we perceive no advantage in adhering to such grouping in our consideration of the case.

I

Plaintiff discusses the trial court's questions one, three, seven, nine, and ten, supra, referring respectively to Art. 1, §§ 3 and 34; Art. 3, § 27; and Art. 15, §§ 11 and 12. In so doing, he urges the class distinctions in the statute to be unreasonable and improper, thereby violating the constitution in its provisions that the rights of all people shall be equal, taxation shall be equal and uniform, all laws shall have uniform operation, there shall be uniformity of assessment, and no special statutes shall be passed.

II

He comments upon question four, maintaining the effect...