State ex rel. Forman v. Wheatley

• Decision Date: 19 March 1917
• Docket Number: 19502
• Citation: 74 So. 427,113 Miss. 555
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL, FOREMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY v. WHEATLEY ET AL., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

74 So. 427

113 Miss. 555

STATE EX REL, FOREMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY v. WHEATLEY ET AL., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

No. 19502

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 19, 1917

APPEAL from the circuit court of Washington county, HON. F. E EVERETT, Judge.

Proceeding by the state, on the relation of J. M. Foreman, district attorney, for writ of mandamus against George Wheatley and others, constituting the board of supervisors of Washington county.

From a judgment dismissing the petition, the state appeals.

Appellees constitute the board of supervisors of Washington county. At their August, 1916, meeting they approved the personal assessment roll for said county; the roll was forwarded to the auditor, and by the auditor turned over to the board of state tax commissioners. The board of state tax commissioners, which will hereafter be referred to as the "state board," upon consideration and comparison of the valuations with valuations in other counties and in pursuance of authority given by chapter 98, Laws 1916 creating the state tax commission, defining its powers, and prescribing its duties, ordered certain corrections to be made in the personal assessment roll of Washington county the effect of which would be to increase the valuations of certain classes of property about nine hundred thousand dollars. In transmitting the order to correct, the state board also directed that notice be given by the president of the board of supervisors of a special or call meeting of the local board for the consideration of and making the changes for the year 1916 in accordance with the order of the state board, the notice to be given in accordance with the provision of said chapter 98. The board of supervisors gave notice of this special meeting and, upon consideration, they elected to enter a protest against the order of the state board, and to present their protest, and to prosecute their objections in accordance with the statute. The state board overruled their objections and entered a final order directing the increase of assessments specified in the order. The board of supervisors thereupon declined to correct the assessments, and upon their refusal to comply with the order of the state board, the state, on the relation of J. M Forman, district attorney, filed this mandamus proceeding to compel compliance with the order of the state tax commission. The petition filed by the district attorney was met by general demurrer, the several grounds of which challenge the constitutionality of the statute creating the state tax commission and their authority and power to compel the board of supervisors to make any changes whatever in the assessment roll. The demurrer was by the circuit court of Washington county sustained, and from the judgment dismissing the petition, the state prosecutes this appeal.

The various grounds of demurrer, twelve in all, state and restate in varying form the following points: First, the act of the legislature in question is invalid because it permits the state board to equalize and raise the assessment of personal property without regard to the valuation and assessment of real property. Second, the act is repugnant to the provisions of both the Constitution of our state and the Constitution of the United States, and deprives the taxpayer of his property without due process of law in that (a) it does not afford the owner of property an opportunity to be heard; (b) it does not provide notice to the owner of any hearing as to the amount his property is to be increased in assessment or as to the propriety of such increase; (c) the owner of property is not afforded a reasonable notice of hearing on the amount at which his property is to be assessed and valued; (d) the owner is not afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the state tax commission. Third, the act contravenes our state Constitution in that it takes the assessment of property out of the hands of assessors and boards of supervisors. Fourth the act attempts to vest the state board with judicial powers in violation of the state Constitution. Fifth, that even if the act is constitutional the state board in this instance did not act as a board of equalization in accordance with the act itself, and did not equalize the various classes of personal property or the total personal property appearing on all the rolls of the state, but acted as a board of assessors, and raised or increased the total assessment of personal property in the state in the sum of eight million, eight hundred forty-three thousand, three hundred and nineteen dollars.

In the presentation of this case counsel for the state contend that the members of the board of supervisors in complying with the order of the state board acted as ministerial officers, and therefore have no right to question the constitutionality of the law here under attack.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Clayton D. Potter, for appellant.

At the 1916 session of the legislature, chapter 98 of the Laws of 1916, was enacted creating the state tax commission. For many years prior to the passage of the act under consideration it had been a matter of universal public knowledge and public concern that gross inequalities existed between the assessed valuations of property in the different counties of the state so that the burden of maintaining the state government having fallen heavier upon the citizen of some counties than of other counties. That these inequalities have existed will not be controverted, and it was for the purpose of correcting to some extent such inequalities that the legislature was prompted to enact the law creating the state tax commission. It is not contended that this act will bring about perfect equality in assessments between the various counties of the state. A system of perfect equality in assessments for taxes has thus far been beyond the ingenuity of man to establish.

The purposes of our Constitution are just and equitable. Our Constitution declares "taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state. Property shall be taxed in proportion to its value." We can never hope to attain the perfect system contemplated by the Constitution; the best we can hope for is to approach nearer the constitutional ideal and standard as time goes by, as new methods and machinery for the determination of correct values are adopted, and as men who make a specialty of such matters give their time and talent to the accomplishment of the constitutional purposes.

In this connection, I will call the court's attention to the Biennial Report of the Auditor of Public Accounts of the state of Mississippi for the period ending October 1, 1915. In that report, Mr. Duncan L. Thompson, then Auditor of Public Accounts, made a tabulated statement of the assessments of real property in the various counties in this state for the year 1915. By reference to the above referred to tabulated statement, designated therein "Assessments of Real Property of the state of Mississippi for the year 1915" the court may see at a glance the inefficiency of the system of equalizing assessments in Mississippi, in so far as state taxes are concerned. There is no real attempt to even approximately assess property at its true value. As a matter of fact, the equalization of assessments in the different counties in the state is controlled largely, if not solely, by the amount of money necessary to be realized for county purposes. As an example of inequality in assessments, I note from the foregoing report that cultivated lands in Hinds county are assessed at an average of five dollars and twenty-six cents per acre, while the same class of lands in Rankin county are assessed at five dollars and twenty cents per acre. But it is a well known fact that the average farm lands in Hinds county are worth and will bring in the market at least three times what Rankin county lands will bring. In the first place, the lands in Hinds county situated within a short distance of the city of Jackson are very valuable on account of their proximity to a market and the many conveniences afforded to those who live near a city. On the other hand, the lands near Jackson on the Rankin side of Pearl River for several miles out at least are subject to overflow and are so broken as to be of little value. A large portion of Hinds county is made up of the lands known as the "Big Black Swamp," and these lands almost equal in fertility the lands in the Mississippi delta. In fact, all cultivated lands in Hinds county compared acre for acre with similar lands in Rankin county, are known to be of far greater value, for Rankin county has not as yet been nearly so highly developed as has Hinds county.

Cultivated lands in Perry county are assessed at thirteen dollars and twelve cents per acre, while cultivated lands in Washington county are assessed at thirteen dollars and eight cents per acre. Everybody can see at a glance that to assess the cultivated lands in Perry county at more than cultivated lands in Washington county is unequal and unjust.

But cultivated lands in Lamar county are assessed at fifteen dollars and twelve cents per acre, while cultivated lands in Sunflower county are assessed at nine dollars and ninety-nine cents per acre. Lands in Lamar county, on an average, would not bring fifteen dollars and twelve cents per acre in the way of rents in a less period than ten years, while cultivated lands in Sunflower county bring almost an annual rental equal to its assessed value of nine dollars and ninety-nine cents.

There is no necessity, however, for pursuing this comparison further, but in passing I will only pause to note that the burdens of government seem to fall more heavily under the old system of taxation upon the shoulders of those least able to bear them.

The second,...