State ex rel. Nelson v. Meek

• Decision Date: 05 February 1917
• Docket Number: 141
• Parties: STATE EX REL. NELSON v. MEEK
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

192 S.W. 202

127 Ark. 349

STATE EX REL. NELSON v. MEEK

No. 141

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 5, 1917

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Warner & Warner, for appellant.

1. The court erred in overruling the demurrer and in rendering judgment for defendants. Under our Constitution and laws it is the plain mandatory duty of the assessor and Board of Equalization to assess and equalize property subject to taxation at its true value in money. Const. Art. 16, § 5; Ib. §§ 9, 10; Kirby's Digest, §§ 6956, 6970; 43 Ark. 243, 257; Kirby's Digest, § 6974; 119 Ark. 362; 49 Id. 390; 116 Id 206; Kirby's Digest, §§ 7004-8. The Tax Commission and the equalization board are bound by the mandate of the Constitution and laws and it was no defense that the Tax Commission advised the assessor or ruled that property should only be assessed at 50 cents on the dollar. Cases supra; Kirby and Castle's Digest, §§ 8456, 8457; Acts 1909, Act 257, § 12.

The Tax Commission is expressly required to use the "true and full value" basis. 233 F. 235-6; 221 Id. 289.

2. A plain legal duty is required; there is no discretion under the law and mandamus is the proper remedy. 221 F. 289; 177 F 1; 43 Ark. 62; 45 Id. 121; 113 Id. 40; 7 Okla. 198; 191 Ill. 528; 44 Id. 240; 106 F. 459; 152 Id. 907; 166 Id. 677; 72 Ark. 27; 103 F 418; 43 C. C. A. 261; 26 Cyc. 320.

The appellees pro sese.

1. The cardinal rule is that all property shall be assessed according to value and that the rate of taxation be equal and uniform. Const. Ark. 16, § 5. According to the first clause the assessment must be according to value in money. The second clause says "that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct." While value is the basis, it does not mean full value. The General Assembly was authorized to select and determine the means and method of placing a value or percentage on the property taxed for the purpose of assessment.

The rate must be uniform and equal and a system of assessors and boards of equalization have been provided. Act 257, Acts 1909. The State Tax Commission is an arm of the Legislature, and constitutional power is delegated over assessment and taxation, except as to the rate. 92 Ark. 492; Kirby's Digest, §§ 6970, 6074, 9956, 7004, 7008, etc. When the valuation is equalized with other property of the same kind property is taxed according to value. 92 Ark. 492. The Constitution does not require an assessment at 100 per cent., but merely that the assessment be on a basis of value, equal and uniform. 88 F. 350, 363.

2. The uniformity rule cannot be violated. 62 Ark. 461; 88 F. 350. The Jimmerson case, 222 F. 497, is not binding. 233 F. 235; 92 Ark. 492. Our own State courts are the final arbiter in the construction of our own Constitution and laws. Petitioner is seeking to compel the performance of a duty which does not exist, and from which this court will grant relief. 92 Ark. 492; 119 Id. 362, 372; 124 Id. 569.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted in the circuit court of Johnson county in the name of the State of Arkansas on the relation of J. L. Nelson, against W. A. Meek, the assessor of Johnson county, and against the county judge and the persons constituting the board of equalization of said county, to compel the defendants, by mandamus, to assess the property of the county for taxation at its true money valuation. It is alleged in the petition that the relator is the holder of certain warrants of the county, duly issued in pursuance to judgments of the county court; that he has obtained judgment on said warrants in the circuit court of Johnson county and the same has not been paid; that there is a large amount of floating scrip of Johnson county which is of depreciated market value by reason of the fact that the outstanding scrip largely exceeds the possible revenues of the county under the present system of taxation; that the assessor and board of equalization have heretofore valued the property of the county for taxation at only fifty per cent. of its true valuation in money, and propose to continue to do so under future assessments unless otherwise directed; and it is further alleged that unless the assessing officers of the county be required to discharge their legal duty by assessing property at its true value in money there will be no means whereby the relator can secure payment of his said judgment against the county.

The defendants filed an answer admitting that the relator was the holder of the scrip as mentioned and described in the petition and had obtained judgment thereon, and also admitted that the assessments of valuation of property for taxation purposes had been on a basis of fifty per cent. of true valuation and would remain the same in the future, but alleged that said assessments of valuation were in accordance with assessments of other property in the other counties of the State and under the express direction of the State Tax Commission which had made an order fixing fifty per cent. as the proportionate valuation to be assessed on property for purposes of taxation.

The relator demurred to the answer, which was overruled, and he declined to proceed further and suffered a judgment dismissing the petition and he prosecutes an appeal to this court.

In the state of the pleadings just related the only question presented is whether or not the answer of the defendants set forth facts sufficient to justify them in assessing the property of Johnson county at less than its full value in money. It is contended on the part of the relator that the Constitution and laws of this State embody a specific command to the assessing officers to assess all property at its full valuation in money and that a refusal on the part of those officers to obey that command calls for compulsory action by the courts in behalf of those who are aggrieved by such dereliction. It therefore becomes important to inquire what the commands of our laws are with respect to the taxation of property, and the relation of those commands to each other.

The only provision of the Constitution bearing upon the question at issue reads as follows:

"All property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the State. No one species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal value." Sec. 5, Art. 16.

Counsel for relator erroneously assume that the above quoted provision of the Constitution amounts to a command to assess property at full valuation, but a consideration of the language used by the framers of the Constitution leads to the conclusion that no such meaning was intended. The only command embraced in this provision is that the property shall be taxed "according to value." That is to say, on a valuation basis and not on some other basis. The further provision is that the value is to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, which shows that it was intended to be a matter for the Legislature to determine what the basis of the valuation should be and how it should be ascertained. There is no doubt of the power of the Legislature to provide for an assessment based on the full money valuation of property, not that the Legislature has so provided in the statutes which have been enacted since the adoption of the present Constitution, but it is equally clear that the Constitution itself does not compel an assessment according to full value, and it does, in fact, leave that matter entirely to the lawmakers. That is the effect of our previous decisions on that subject. In Bank of Jonesboro v. Hampton, 92 Ark. 492, 123 S.W. 753, we said:

"It is true the Constitution provides that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, but this is done when the valuation is equalized with other property of the same kind in the county."

See also Ft. Smith & Van Buren Bridge Co. Ex Parte, 62 Ark. 461, and Drew County Timber Co. v. Board of Equalization, 124 Ark. 569, 187 S.W. 942, in each of which cases this court ruled that an individual taxpayer was entitled to a reduction of his assessment so as to conform to the valuations placed upon other property in the county, notwithstanding the fact that his own property was then assessed at less than full value. The same interpretation has been placed upon similar provisions in the Constitutions of other States. Taylor v. L. &. N. Rd. Co., 88 F. 350.

The only two specific mandates contained in the Constitution are one that a valuation basis must be adopted, and the other that in fixing the value the same shall be "equal and uniform throughout the State." Aside from the constitutional limitations in those two respects the legislative will is left supreme, but any action of the Legislature looking to the ascertainment of the value of property for purposes of taxation, or in fixing the basis of taxation, must conform to that paramount command of the Constitution that the valuation must be equal and uniform throughout the State. In other words, the Legislature can fix any basis of valuation that may be found fair or necessary, either at the full valuation in money or any less percentage of valuation, provided that the element of uniformity throughout the State is preserved. And it is also readily seen that the action of executive officers in carrying out the methods of taxation prescribed under the statutes of the State must conform to the Constitutional commands of equality and uniformity. We have then this situation: The lawmakers have, in the statutes enacted, provided for a system...