Sparkman v. State

• Decision Date: 15 February 1916
• Citation: 71 Fla. 210,71 So. 34
• Parties: SPARKMAN, Tax Assessor v. STATE ex rel. BANK OF YBOR CITY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

71 So. 34

71 Fla. 210

SPARKMAN, Tax Assessor v. STATE ex rel. BANK OF YBOR CITY.

Florida Supreme Court

February 15, 1916

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Bank of Ybor City against S.E. Sparkman, as Tax Assessor. Judgment for relator and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

'A just valuation of all property' is not secured as is mandatorily required by the Constitution when the assessment valuation of some property is higher proportionately than the valuation put upon other property assessed for the same purpose.

In the absence of express repeals or irreconcilable repugnancy, the effect of a later statute upon a former one affecting the same subject depends upon the intent of the lawmaking power and this is true whether the two statutes are passed at the same session or at different sessions of the Legislature.

The intent of a statute is to be determined by a consideration of the language used, the subject-matter, the purpose designed to be accomplished, and all other relevant and proper matters that may assist in ascertaining the legislative intent.

A general statute covering an entire subject-matter, and manifestly designed to embrace all the regulations of the subject, may supersede a former statute covering a portion only of the subject, when such is the manifest intent, even though the two are not wholly repugnant.

Where there is material repugnance in statutory regulations, or where there is anything from which an intent that a later act shall supersede a prior act may be fairly inferred, it will be given that effect, particularly when the later act covers a broader general subject and contains a portion of the particular provisions of the former act, and adds to some portions and omits other portions of such particular provisions so as to make such particular regulations contained in the prior act conform to the purpose and policy of the later act covering a broader subject, including the lesser.

In enacting chapter 5596, approved June 18, 1907, the lawmaking power clearly indicated an intent that such chapter shall supersede the previously enacted chapter 5605, approved May 22, 1907, which covers only a portion of the subject-matter that is fully covered by the complete regulations contained in the subsequently enacted chapter 5596, approved June 18 1907.

The county commissioners have no general power in making tax assessments, but only such special and limited power as is specifically conferred by statutes to secure equalization of tax values. When that power as specially conferred is exercised, and final adjournment is taken, their special power as a board of equalization ceases, particularly when as in this case the power is limited and particular, and in no sense general, as are other powers conferred upon the commissioners with reference to general county matters.

COUNSEL W. T. Martin, H. C. Gordon, and Guy A. Andrews, all of Tampa, and T. F. West, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

Geo. P. Raney, J. W. Morris, Jr., and Wm. Hunter, all of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued by the circuit judge wherein it is alleged that respondent, the tax assessor of Hillsborough county, in Making up the assessment roll of said Hillsborough county for the year A. D. 1915, placed therein prior to July 1st of said year an alleged assessment against the relator upon its personal property in and at a valuation of said personal property of $109,000; that said alleged assessment in the valuation imposed as aforesaid was excessive, unjust, and inequitable; that in said alleged assessment the valuation imposed upon the said personal property of the relator was higher proportionately than the valuation imposed by the respondent in assessing the same on said roll upon any and all other real and personal property assessed in said roll, except in the other assessments on said roll of the personal property of the other banks located in Hillsborough county, and that the valuations imposed by the respondent in the assessment by him in said roll of the personal property of all banks in said Hillsborough county, including the relator, were by far greater and higher proportionately than the valuations imposed by the respondent aforesaid said upon all other real and personal property assessed in said roll; that the assessment aforesaid by the respondent in said roll of the personal property of the relator violated the provisions of section 1 of article 9 of the Constitution of the state of Florida that 'the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal'; that the relator, desiring to present its complaint against the assessment hereinbefore mentioned to a body authorized to hear the same and grant relief in the premises, appeared before the board of county commissioners at the regular meeting held on the first Monday in July, A. D. 1915, to wit, on July 5th, when the said board had convened and was sitting as a board of equalization, and petitioned the said board to equalize the assessment against the relator and for a reduction of the same, and the said board took the said complaint and petition under consideration; that on July 6, 7, and 8, A. D. 1915, the said board continued its sittings as a board of equalization, and on July 8, 1915, by reason of the finding of the said board that the assessment roll of said Hillsborough county for the year 1915 was incomplete, by its resolution then duly adopted, allowed an extension of time for the completion of said roll, which had been presented by the respondent to the said board for review and equalization, until, to wit, August 4, 1915, when the said board on the date last mentioned reconvened as a board of equalization in pursuance of an adjournment to said last-mentioned date, and at its said meeting on August 4, 1915, the respondent, having completed the said assessment roll, again presented the same to the said board for equalization and review. Whereupon the said board by resolution adopted to that effect determined to sit for one week, or as long as should be necessary for the purpose of hearing complaints and receiving testimony as to the value of any property, real or personal, as fixed by the said county assessor of taxes and of reviewing, perfecting, and equalizing the said assessment on August 5, 6, and 7, 1915, and at its said meeting on August 7, A. D. 1915, while sitting as a board of equalization aforesaid, having heard arguments and testimony with reference to the complaint of the relator hereinbefore mentioned, and having continued to have the same under advisement, did then and there grant the said complaint of the relator, and did reduce the valuation imposed by the assessor in the assessment against the personal property of the relator to the sum of $17,900, all of which more fully appear by reference to a certified copy of the resolution of the said board adopted at its said meeting and spread upon its minutes of said meeting on August 7, 1915, which is as follows:

Whereas, the various national and state banks and trust companies in Hillsborough county, Fla., have appeared before this board, protesting against the personal property assessment of said national and state banks and trust companies, and requested that said assessment be equalized, and that said banks and trust companies be assessed upon the same basis as other property owners in Hillsborough county, Fla.; and

Whereas, it appears from the facts and figures as submitted by said banks and trust companies that the personal property assessments against said banks and trust companies is unjust to said banks and trust companies, disproportionate to other assessments as against private individuals and corporations, and wholly without any basis or foundation whatsoever:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the board of county commissioners of Hillsborough county, Fla., that the protest as made by said banks and trust companies be granted, and that said personal property assessment against said banks and trust companies be equalized, and that said banks and trust companies be assessed upon the same basis as other property assessments in Hillsborough county, Fla.; and

Be it further resolved that the assessment against the personal property of the various banks and trust companies in Hillsborough county be reduced to the following figures, to wit:

First National Bank of Tampa .... $70,800 00

Citizens' Bank & Trust Company ... 25,000 00

Exchange National Bank of

Tampa ........................... 47,900 00

American National Bank of

Tampa ........................... 34,400 00

First Savings & Trust Company

of Tampa ........................ 44,400 00

Bank of Commerce of Tampa ......... 9,200 00

Bank of Ybor City, Ybor City ..... 17,900 00

Latin American Bank, Ybor City .... 5,300 00

Bank of West Tampa, West

Tampa ............................ 3,500 00

Hillsborough State Bank of

Plant City ....................... 5,460 00

Bank of Plant City, Plant City .... 5,400 00

First National Bank of Plant

City ............................ 4,400 00

Passed by the board of county commissioners of Hillsborough county Fla., on this 7th day of August, A. D. 1915

--that in pursuance of the said determination and resolution of the board the respondent did upon said assessment roll change the valuations as fixed by him in the several assessments referred to in the said resolution, including the assessment against the relator upon its personal property, from the valuations originally...