Robertson v. Monroe County

• Decision Date: 17 June 1918
• Docket Number: 20230
• Citation: 79 So. 187,118 Miss. 541
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERTSON, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. MONROE COUNTY

79 So. 187

118 Miss. 541

ROBERTSON, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. MONROE COUNTY

No. 20230

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 17, 1918

APPEAL from the chancery court of Monroe county, HON. A. J MCINTYRE, Chancellor.

Bill by Stokes V. Robertson, State Revenue Agent, for the use of Aberdeen and Amory, Mississippi, against Monroe County. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed.

D. W Houston, Sr., & Jr., for appellant.

Leftwich & Tubb, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE J. SMITH, C. J., and COOK, J., dissent.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

The state revenue agent filed a bill in the chancery court of Monroe county, alleging that, in pursuance of the authority and duty of his office, he investigated the books and accounts and vouchers of Monroe county, and of the municipalities of Aberdeen and Amory, along the line of the collection and proper distribution of ad valorem road taxes and of ad valorem road maintenance fund taxes collected in the fiscal years of 1910 to 1915, both years inclusive, on and from property within the limits of the said municipalities, which had been paid over into the treasury of said county; and that in the course of his investigations he found that there was a balance of about nine hundred forty dollars and sixty-two cents which was due to and should have been paid to the city of Aberdeen on account of ad valorem road taxes collected on property within the limits of the city for the years 1910, 1911, and 1912; and found also that two thousand, nine hundred seventy-two dollars and eighty-seven cents was due and should have been paid to the city of Aberdeen on account of ad valorem road maintenance fund taxes collected on property within the limits of said city of Aberdeen for the fiscal years 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915; and also found that there was a balance of about five hundred seventy-five dollars and forty-three cents which should have been paid to the city of Amory on account of ad valorem road fund taxes collected on property within the limits of Amory during the fiscal years 1910, 1911, and 1912; and also that there was about eight hundred and ninety-nine dollars and fifty cents due the city of Amory on account of ad valorem road fund taxes collected on property within the limits of the city for the fiscal year 1913; and that there was about nine hundred thirty-five dollars and ninety-eight cents due and should have been paid to the city of Amory on account of ad valorem taxes collected on property within the limits of the city for the fiscal year 1914; and that there was about nine hundred sixty-five dollars and eighty-nine cents which was due and should have been paid to the city of Amory on account of ad valorem road taxes on property within the limits of said city for the year 1915; and that there was about one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars and forty-five cents due and should have been paid to the city of Amory on account of ad valorem road maintenance fund collected on property in said city of Amory for the fiscal years 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915; that the amounts claimed and made exhibits to the bill were filed with the board of supervisors of the county in October and November, 1916, and that each and all of said claims were rejected and disallowed before the institution of this suit. It is further charged that the county claims that it is entitled to credits on some or all of said claims for commissions for the collection of amounts, reduction in assessments, for insolvents, and for working the streets of said cities by convicts, as to which there is a dispute between the complainants and defendant, and that the complainant is not advised as to the sum so claimed, or as to the balance due by the said county, and cannot ascertain the same after diligent inquiry, and that a discovery is necessary from the county as to said several amounts, and that to ascertain the exact amount involves some intricate and complicated accounting. It is further alleged that the municipalities during said years worked the streets at the expense of the municipal treasuries, and was entitled to one-half of the ad valorem road taxes and ad valorem road maintenance fund collected on the property within the municipal limits. The county demurred to the bill on the ground, first, that there was no equity on the face of the bill; second, that the bill is multifarious, and that it seeks to join distinct and separate causes of action; and, third, that the revenue agent had no authority to bring suit; fourth, that if any cause of action exists in the cities of Aberdeen and Amory against Monroe county, that these municipalities themselves can and must prosecute their separate suits in their own name and right; fifth, that the bill is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and that it fails to allege under what law or statute the ad valorem taxes were collected, and what law or statute vests in said cities the right to any portion of such taxes. The demurrer was sustained by the chancellor, and, complainant not asking to amend, his bill was dismissed, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The power of the revenue agent to bring this suit is discussed in the preceding case of Robertson, State Revenue Agent, v. Monroe County, 79 So. 184, the only difference here being that the revenue agent is representing the cities of Aberdeen and Amory in a suit against the county. What was said in the other case would apply here, so far as the power of the revenue agent to bring suit is concerned. We think h...