Penney v. State
| Citation | 155 So. 576,229 Ala. 36 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 559. |
| Parties | PENNEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.
Appeal to the circuit court by J. E. Penney from assessment of his property for taxation by the board of review. From a judgment confirming the assessment as made, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
John A Caddell and Tennis Tidwell, both of Decatur, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal for a review of the effort to reduce the value fixed by the duly constituted authorities against appellant's real properties.
The taxpayer's right of review or retrial of the issues of fact on appeal to the circuit court from assessments for taxation of taxable property is of recent consideration.
The pertinent statutory provisions to be observed and applied are considered in pari materia. There are no requirements of law for the usual formal pleadings other than the observance of the precedent conditions of the statute to a due assessment by the several officials charged with that duty, the hearing before the board of review, the appeal to the circuit court and the filing therein of the precedent compliances against the party seeking relief and review. Daffin, Tax Assessor, v. Scotch Lumber Co., 226 Ala. 33, 145 So. 452; Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. State ex rel. Whetstone, Tax Assessor, 226 Ala. 420, 147 So. 187.
This trial was in the circuit court on appeal from the board of review fixing the assessment for ad valorem taxes against appellant and his specific real properties, made the subject of this controversy and appeal. The jury found the values for the purpose of taxation as "made by the Board of Review to be just and fair," and upon this verdict a judgment was rendered which recited, among other things, "that the assessment as fixed is just, true and legal, and is 60% of the fair and reasonable and market value of the property involved on the 1st day of Oct. 1931," specifically describing each lot, tract, or parcel and the respective valuations thereof by the board of review, further reciting that "the assessable value of the property involved in this suit, as assessed and shown on the assessment as herein set forth be and is hereby fixed as 60% of its fair and reasonable and market value of the said property involved on the 1st day of October, 1931"; and concluded by taxing the costs against the appellant and the sureties on the appeal bond, for which execution will issue.
The bill of exceptions recited the introduction in evidence of the original book of assessments of that county "for the year 1932, containing the assessments against the property of the defendant, J. E. Penney, and the defendant admitted in open court that the said book was the original book of assessments of said county for said year, and that it contained the assessments of the defendant"; it contained the usual and required recitals-the lists of specific properties, the amounts in acreage, etc., locations and character thereof, the amounts of tax values of each tract or lot for the preceding year's valuation, the taxpayer's estimate of value at 60 per cent., the valuations thereof by the board of review; that there were differences in several amounts between the estimated values of the taxpayer and the valuations of the board of review, and as compared with increased valuation of the preceding year; that the board of review generally reduced the general tracts from the assessment of the preceding year, but in excess of the taxpayer's estimate of value.
The evidence of appellant as a witness in his own behalf, as well as that of his witnesses, tended to show a reduced valuation by about $20,755 less than that fixed and made by the board of review. The evidence for the state tended to support the values fixed by the board; thus was presented a jury question for decision. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135.
The assignments of error challenge the rendition of the judgment on the verdict entered, and present for review the action of the trial court in oral instructions to the jury to which exceptions were reserved.
The questions and matter presented by the exceptions to oral instructions given the jury were decided in Gay et al. v. State et al. (Ala. Sup.) 153 So. 767.
The due levy and assessment of taxes is primarily a legislative function, and the acts of the assessing officials and the board of review set up by the Legislature, in taking the assessments, hearing tax cases, and fixing the value of property for purposes of taxation, are equivalent to a court of limited jurisdiction, and constitute a part of the taxing process and agencies of the state provided by the Legislature for that purpose. In the hearing of the matter on appeal to the circuit court, the record of the board of review, the tax commission, or of the tax assessor, is a due appearance on the part of the state in the circuit court; and makes therein a prima facie case against the taxpayer, until there is evidence on his part to show either (1) that the property is exempt, or (2) that it is of less value than that fixed in the assessment, which is to show the correct value of the levy of that ad valorem tax imposed by the law on such property of the taxpayer. Gen. Acts 1923, pp. 182, 183, §§ 57-61; Gay et al. v. State et al., supra.
When the several portions of the oral charge, to which exceptions were taken before the jury had retired, are considered with the whole of the instruction given, no error was committed in instructing the jury.
Questions of fact were presented for the decision of the jury, under the evidence, which we have carefully examined and find no error in the judgment rendered. The taxpayer had made his return of reduction on each separate lot, tract, or parcel of his real property, specifically indicated and sufficiently described, and his reduced value placed thereon. It was so assessed by the tax assessor, as that official was required to do in the discharge of his official duties and by the statute. Gen. Acts 1923, pp. 172-181, §§ 30 1/2-56. Noted on the return were the findings and valuations by the board of review, and the taxable values of each tract, some of which were of the value fixed by the taxpayer, and a large number of such lots, tracts, or parcels were raised by the board of review; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co. v. W. S. Newell Const. Co.
...was hopelessly defective thereby affording no proper basis for a judgment. Ex parte Russell, 204 Ala. 626, 87 So. 227; Penney v. State, 229 Ala. 36, 155 So. 576. It was clearly admitted in the defendants' pleadings filed below that the defendants owed the plaintiff $1343.00 for concrete mix......
-
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Bass
...or was it definite and complete when referred to the issues submitted, to support the judgment entered thereon? Penney v. State, 229 Ala. 36, 155 So. 576, 578 (1934). (W)here the language of judgments, or verdicts can be reasonably interpreted by reference to the pleadings and papers in the......
-
Lake Forest Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Baldwin County Bd. of Equalization
...and the burden is on the taxpayer to show through competent evidence that the tax assessor's appraisal is incorrect. See Penney v. State, 229 Ala. 36, 155 So. 576 (1934). Based on this court's standard of review, and the fact that the trial court complied with our instructions on remand, we......