Pacific Fruit Express Co. v. City of Yuma
Citation | 261 P. 49,32 Ariz. 601 |
Decision Date | 28 November 1927 |
Docket Number | Civil 2647 |
Parties | PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. CITY OF YUMA, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Mr Francis M. Hartman, and Mr. D. V. Cowden, (Mr. Alexander B Baker, of counsel), for Appellant.
Mr. H Wupperman, City Attorney, for Appellees.
The Pacific Fruit Express Company paid the taxes assessed and levied against its property for the year 1925 by the city of Yuma, to such city, under protest, and brought this action to recover such taxes, claiming that they were illegally collected. This method is provided by the statute, paragraph 4939, Civil Code of 1913. Judgment went against it in the trial court, and it appeals.
It is the contention of appellant that the appellee city, under the law, was without power to impose a tax upon its real property located in said city, for city purposes, when used in connection with its operations as a private car line.
If chapter 9, title 49, Civil Code, is constitutional, we think the contention is sound. The appellant falls within the definition of a private car line, or private car company, as contained in that chapter; it being engaged, as shown by the record, in the business of furnishing and leasing refrigerator-cars, and supplying the same with ice, for the purpose of transporting fruits, vegetables and merchandise over lines of railway in Arizona and other states and owned by other persons and corporations. Therein (chapter 9, supra) the power of assessing and equalizing the property, both real and personal, of private car lines, and also fixing the tax rate thereon, is vested exclusively in the state tax commission, and the duty of collecting such taxes is imposed upon the state treasurer.
Paragraph 4953 requires private car lines operating in the state to make an annual statement to the state tax commission of all of its property, with details as to its use, value, and earnings; and by subdivision 14 thereof it is provided that such statement shall contain -- "the real estate, personal property, structures, machinery, fixtures and appliances, owned by said company, subject to taxation within this state, and the location and full cash value thereof in the county or city where the same is situated."
Paragraph 4955 provides that the tax commission shall ascertain and determine, on or before the first Monday in October, the full cash value of the property of private car lines, whether such property has been used in intrastate, trans-state or interstate business.
Paragraph 4959, among other things, provides:
And paragraph 4960 provides that:
"Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to relieve any private car company from payment to the State Corporation Commission of the annual license tax, the annual registration fee or filing fee. . . ."
The appellee's theory seems to be that, because the property of appellant, situate within its limits, receives police protection, the city has, or should have, the right to make it contribute its proportion of the expenses of such protection, and that a law that relieves it from such burden operates unequally, since all the rest of the property in the city must help to bear the expense of city government.
Section 11, article 9, of the Constitution provides that "the manner, method and mode of assessing, equalizing and levying taxes in the state of Arizona shall be such as may be prescribed by law." This gives plenary power to the legislature in the matter of taxation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. N. Am. Car Corp.
...... county is a separate district for county taxes, every city for city taxes, etc. Or, stating [118 ...Pacific R. Co. v. Duncan, 68 Mont. 420, 219 P. 638, 639, the ...428;Hayes v. Smith, 58 Mont. 306, 192 P. 615;Fruit Growers Express Co. v. Britt, 94 Mont. 281, 22 P.2d ...v. City of Yuma, 32 Ariz. 601, 261 P. 49;Wyatt v. State Board of ......
-
State v. North Am. Car Corp.
...... separate district for county taxes, every city for city. taxes, etc. Or, stating [118 Mont. 193] the ... case of State ex rel. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Duncan, 68 Mont. 420, 219 P. 638, 639, the ...428; Hayes v. Smith, . 58 Mont. 306, 192 P. 615; Fruit Growers Express Co. v. Britt, 94 Mont. 281, 22 P.2d 171; ... Growers Express Co. v. City of Yuma, 32 Ariz. 601, 261. P. 49; Wyatt v. State Board of ......
-
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck, Civil 3449
......78, 86, 289 P. 515, 518.See, also,. Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 39 Ariz. 470, 7. P.2d 622. . . ...The "lieu. tax" is a substituted tax. Pacific Fruit Express. Co. v. City of Yuma, 32 Ariz. 601, 261 ......
-
Miners & Merchants Bank v. Board of Supervisors of Cochise County, Civil 4216
...... not do indirectly. State v. Yuma Irr. Dist., ante, p. 178, 99 P.2d 704. As was said. by ... prohibition, and it is urged that in Pacific Fruit. Express Co. v. Yuma, 32 Ariz. 601, 261 P. 49,. and ...v. Chorn,. (Mo. Sup.) 186 S.W. 681, and Queen City Fire Ins. Co. v. Basford, 27 S.D. 164, 130 N.W. 44, the. ......