Reed v. State
| Decision Date | 25 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | 28179 |
| Citation | 124 So. 497,155 Miss. 512 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | REED v. STATE TO USE OF ARMSTRONG |
TAXATION. Where tax collector had listed delinquent real property but had not delivered list to printer, taxpayer was liable for ten per cent penalty (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1951).
Where tax collector had listed delinquent real property but had not actually delivered list to printer before taxpayer paid taxes, taxpayer was liable for ten per cent additional compensation under Laws 1924, chapter 206, Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1951, since advertisement is not a coercive measure in view of Code 1906, section 4328, and Hemingway's Code 1927, section 8247, providing that failure to advertise shall not invalidate sale.
APPEAL from circuit court of Adams county, HON. R. L. CORBAN, Judge.
Action by the state, to the use of G. W. Armstrong, against William H. Reed. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Reversed.
Engle & Laub, of Natchez, for appellant.
It is appellant's contention in this case that after the list was made up for advertisement the work had been done by the sheriff's office and whether the list had actually been published or handed to the printer made no difference since the list was made up after the first day of February, the date of delinquency, and the penalty attached after that date.
State ex rel. Roberson v. Columbus & G. R. Co., 92 So. 233, 129 Miss. 564; State ex rel. Roberson, Attorney-General, v. Delta Southern Railway Co., 92 So. 235; Anderson v. Hawks, 70 Miss. 639, 12 So. 697; Railroad v. Love, 69 Miss. 109, 12 So. 266; Miller v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 20 So. 875, 74 Miss. 110.
Kennedy & Geisenberger, of Natchez, for appellee.
The law provides coercive remedies by the tax collector for the collection of delinquent taxes. He may collect by suit, which is a coercive measure. The notice signed by the tax collector and published in the paper is the due process provided by the statute. As compensation for the collection of taxes by any of the coercive methods, the law allows the tax collector ten per centum.
Y. & M. V. Railroad Co. v. Fitzgerald, 95 So. 746.
The mere making of a list by the tax collector in his office of delinquent taxpayers is not the commencing of any suit or any other proceeding of a coercive nature, it is not the commencing of an action.
Throughout the year 1926, G. W. Armstrong was the owner of a large amount of lands in Adams county which were regularly assessed for taxes for that year. The said owner failed to pay the taxes until long past the due date, and did not pay the same until March 3, 1927. In the meantime and between February 1 1927, and said March 3, 1927, the tax collector had made up his list of all delinquent real property for advertisement for sale, but had not actually delivered the list to the printer. When the taxpayer appeared on March 3d and offered to pay his said delinquent taxes, he insisted that he should be allowed to do so without the additional compensation of ten per cent provided by statute, chapter 206, Laws 1924, section 1951, Hemingway's Code 1927; but the tax collector demanded the said ten per cent which was paid under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Co. v. Dyer, Motor Vehicle Com'r
...... . . Alleged. fact that if gasoline tax remittance had been timely mailed,. week-end bank clearance delay would have prevented state from. receiving money until Monday, when remittance was actually. received, and that therefore state was not delayed in use of. money, did not ... 110; Tricounty District v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 170. Ark. 22, 278 S.W. 627; Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 260 U.S. 647, 67 L.Ed. 439; Reed v. State, 124 So. 497; Bennett v. Jones, 107 Miss. 880, 66 So. 277; B. & H. v. Robertson, 120 Miss. 684, 83 So. 4; G. & M. Traction Co. v. ......
-
State v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...... taxpayer, but is in furtherance of enforcing a public duty in. the interest of the public welfare . Bennett v. Jones, 107 Miss. 880, 66 So. 277; Gulfport & M. C. T. Co. v. Robertson, 129 Miss. 322, 92 So. 231;. Robertson v. Southeastern Express Co., 130 Miss. 305, 94 So. 210; Reed v. State, 155 Miss. 512, 124. So. 497; Brittian et al. v. Robertson, 120 Miss. 684, 83 So. 4; Hamel v. Marlow, 171 Miss. 559, 157. So. 255, 96 A.L.R. 924; C.J. Title, Taxation, Vol. 61,. Section 2104, p. 1482." (Italics ours.). . . And. held:. . . . " This ......