Shenango Furnace Co. v. Fairfield Tp.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | 118 |
| Citation | 229 Pa. 357,78 A. 937 |
| Parties | Shenango Furnace Company v. Fairfield Township, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 4, 1910
Appeal, No. 118, Oct. T., 1910, by defendants, from decree of C.P. Westmoreland Co., No. 633 Equity, on bill in equity in case of Shenango Furnace Company v. The Township of Fairfield and C. A. Hamill, collector of taxes. Decree modified.
Bill in equity for an injunction, an accounting and for a refunding of taxes alleged to have been paid by mistake. Before DOTY P.J.
The case was referred to M. N. McGeary, Esq., as referee whose findings of fact and of law were as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT.
1. That the Shenango Furnace Company, plaintiff, is a corporation of the state of Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the mining of coal and the sale thereof, and is the owner of real estate and personal property situate in said township of Fairfield, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania.
2. The said township of Fairfield, one of the defendants, is one of the territorial subdivisions of said county of Westmoreland, with such power and authority as is usually given to townships for the purpose of the assessment and collection of taxes for road purposes; and the said C. A. Hamill, the other defendant, is the duly qualified collector of taxes in said township, or at least was such collector at the time of the filing and service of the bill.
3. That the valuation of the property of plaintiff for the year 1906 was $19,400, which was the last preceding adjusted valuation furnished to the road supervisors of said township prior to July 1, 1907, and that in accordance with the requirements of law, the road supervisors of said township during the month of March, in the year 1907, levied a road tax in said township, on all taxable property therein for road purposes at the rate of eight mills.
4. Pursuant to the Act of assembly approved April 12, 1905, P.L. 142, providing, among other things, for the levying and collection of road taxes, and with intent to secure the benefit of the provisions of said statute with regard to the discount therein provided for payment prior to June 1 in any year, the plaintiff tendered to S. T. Ford, treasurer of said township, defendant, on May 31, 1907, the sum of $156.20, which was the amount of road tax due from plaintiff after adding thereto $1.00 personal tax, being the amount due according to said valuation and according to said millage; and the said treasurer thereupon refused to accept said tender. At the time of said tender the said treasurer had not received his duplicate and advised the agent of plaintiff making the tender that he had no authority to receive any taxes, or at least that he had no taxes against plaintiff. The plaintiff has, since the tender, been ready and willing to pay said sum of $156.20.
5. Although the assessor for the said township of Fairfield had made and returned a valuation for the purpose of taxation to the county commissioners for the triennial year 1907, prior to February 15, 1907, and on said date of February 15, 1907, the commissioners changed the valuation of the coal of plaintiff per acre, as returned by the assessor, and fixed the same at $500 per acre, and then after the appeal, which was held June 12, 1907, to wit: On June 25, 1907, reduced the same to $400 per acre, yet no adjusted valuation was made for the reason that the plaintiff appealed from the adjustment by the county commissioners to the court of common pleas to No. 548, August Term, 1907, and the court again reduced the valuation of said coal per acre to $330 per acre, thus establishing the adjusted valuation, -- the decree establishing said adjustment being made December 31, 1907. However the plaintiff appealed only from the valuation of its coal as fixed by the commissioners on June 25, 1907, and therefore the adjusted valuation for 1907 of any other taxable property owned by the plaintiff in said township was made on the said date of June 25, 1907.
6. After February 15, 1907, and before March 4, 1907, the supervisors of defendant township called upon the county commissioners for the purpose of procuring the valuations for the purpose of laying the road tax. The adjusted valuations of the property of the Shenango Furnace Company for 1907, were not and could not be furnished by the commissioners for the reason that the appeals, as far as the Shenango Furnace Company was concerned, were not yet held, as aforesaid, and therefore adjusted valuations could not be made as yet; and the commissioners did not furnish to said road supervisors any adjusted valuation for county purposes for the year 1907. On March 4, 1907, the day required by law, the board of supervisors met and levied the road tax fixing a millage of eight mills as aforesaid. We find, therefore, that the road tax for defendant township was levied on March 4, 1907.
7. That the defendants claim from the plaintiff eight mills on the adjusted valuation for county purposes for the year 1907, a part probably of which valuation was adjusted by the county commissioners on June 25, 1907, and the remaining part, to wit, the coal, was adjusted by the court on December 21, 1907.
8. That the last adjusted valuation for county purposes prior to June 25, 1907, was the adjusted valuation for the year 1906.
9. Since the county commissioners of said county have completed their adjusted valuation at the time aforesaid, and since the court of common pleas of Westmoreland county has revised the same on appeal, the said C. A. Hamill, tax collector of said township, has given notice to plaintiff based on the adjusted valuation for 1907, that plaintiff was indebted to said township in the sum of $2,091.14, and the plaintiff, in ignorance of its rights and the facts with relation to the assessment of said road tax, and by mistake and inadvertence, thereupon paid to the said C. A. Hamill, collector, the sum of $1,722.56; but the said C. A. Hamill, collector as aforesaid, has demanded $368.58, balance of the said $2,091.14, which he claims is owing for road taxes by the plaintiff for the year 1907; and the said C. A. Hamill, collector as aforesaid, one of the defendants, at the time of filing the bill of complaint, was about to proceed to collect the amount thus claimed to be due for the balance of the road tax for the year 1907.
FINDINGS OF LAW.
1. The last adjusted valuation for county purposes as contemplated in the second section of the Act of April 12, 1905, P.L. 142, is that one furnished by the county commissioners to the road supervisors prior to the time at which the said supervisors levy the road tax for any year.
2. The road tax of eight mills which was levied by the supervisors of defendant township on March 4, 1907, was not levied on the adjusted valuation or any other valuation of plaintiff's property for the year 1907, but was levied on the adjusted valuation of plaintiff's property for the year 1906.
3. The sum of $156.20, as tendered, was the full amount of road tax owing by plaintiff to defendant for road tax of 1907; and the plaintiff company having in ignorance of the facts and by mistake paid the sum of $1,722.56 to C. A. Hamill, collector of said defendant township, there is due and owing to the plaintiff company from the said township the difference between the said sum of $156.20 and the said sum of $1,722.56, to wit, the sum of $1,566.36.
4. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for.
Exceptions to the report of the referee were dismissed by the court, and the following decree entered:
And now, December 11, 1909, this case comes on to be heard on exceptions to the report of the referee and was argued by counsel, and upon due consideration it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows: That the full amount of road taxes owing by plaintiff, Shenango Furnace Company, to the defendant, the township of Fairfield, for the year of 1907, was the sum of $156.20, and the plaintiff company, having in ignorance of the facts and by mistake, paid as road taxes for the said year the sum of $1,722.56 to C. A. Hamill, collector of said taxes for said defendant township for said year, there is due and owing to the plaintiff company from the said township of Fairfield, the difference between the sum of $156.20 and the said sum of $1,722.56, to wit, the sum of $1,566.36; that the said township of Fairfield do pay to the said plaintiff, Shenango Furnace Company, the said sum of $1,566.36; the said township of Fairfield and its officers and the said C. A. Hamill, collector of road taxes for said township are hereby enjoined and restrained from the collection of any other or further road taxes from the said plaintiff for the year 1907.
Error assigned among others was the decree of the court.
S. A. Kline, with him Wade T. Kline and Geo. P. Kline, for appellants. -- Mr. Dyer, the vice president of the company, upon receipt of the tax collector's notice claiming the amount of road tax, examined it, approved it, and passed it over to the accounting officers of the company for payment, having full knowledge and information that the claim was based on the valuation of 1907. Certainly such a payment does not entitle the plaintiff company to the relief it asks for: Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547 (10 S.Ct. Repr. 620); First Nat. Bank v. Mayor, etc., of Americus, 68 Ga. 119; Rogers v. Inhabitants of Greenbush, 58 Me. 390; Conkling v. City of Springfield, 24 N.E. Repr. 67; Bowman v. Boyd, 21 Nev. 281 (30 Pac. Repr. 823); Richardson v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 398 (30 Pac. Repr. 333); Swift v. City of Poughkeepsie, 37 N.Y. 511; Hopkins v. City of Butte, 40 Pac. Repr. 171; Taylor v. Board of Health, 31 Pa. 73.
Paul H Gaither, with him Charles E. Whitten, for appellee. -- This case is ruled by the decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial