State v. Sloss

• Decision Date: 21 February 1888
• Citation: 83 Ala. 93,3 So. 745
• Parties: STATE v. SLOSS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 745

83 Ala. 93

STATE v. SLOSS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 21, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; HENRY C. SPEAKE, Judge.

Action against Joseph H. Sloss, agent, for taxes assessed against the American Mortgage Company of Scotland, a foreign corporation.

William Richardson, for appellant.

L W. Day and D. D. Shelly, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

The action is brought by the state to recover of the defendant who was agent of the American Mortgage Company of Scotland the taxes assessed on the gross receipts derived from engaging in the business in this state of loaning money, or other thing of value, upon mortgage or lien on property, under subdivision 8 of section 6 of the "Act to levy taxes for the use of the state and counties thereof," approved December 12, 1884. Acts 1884-85, p. 3. The section requires that when the business is conducted by an agent, such agent must annually, on the first day of April, return to the assessor a sworn statement of the gross receipts derived from such business for the year preceding; and further provides that "each such agent shall be personally responsible for the amount of the taxes hereby levied and assessed, under this section, upon the said gross receipts of the persons, company, association, or corporation for which, or in whose interest, such agent may be acting." The defendant having failed, as such agent, to return the sworn statement as required by April 1, 1886, the assessor thereafter assessed the taxes.

It was competent for the legislature to require the agent to pay the taxes, and he may be compelled to do so by suit. Sumter Co. v. Bank, 62 Ala. 464. The liability of the agent is not imposed in the nature of a penalty for failure to return the sworn statement, but is the mode provided to collect the taxes. This section of the revenue law was repealed by the amendatory act of December 11, 1886. Acts 1886-87, p. 31. The complaint was demurred to on several grounds, one of the assigned grounds of demurrer being the repeal of the section under which the taxes were levied before the action was brought, which was sustained by the court. The other grounds of demurrer were overruled, and are not before us for consideration. Though some courts hold otherwise, the general rule sustained by the weight of authority is "that where taxes are levied under a law which is repealed by a subsequent act, unless it appears clearly that the legislature intended the repeal to work retrospectively, it will be assumed that it intended the tax to be collected according to the law in force when they were levied." Cooley, Tax'n, 292, note; Oakland v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303. Generally a statute will not be construed to have retroactive operation unless there be found therein clear expressions that it shall have such effect. There are no expressions in the repealing amendatory act indicating an intention to destroy the right to collect taxes levied by prior statutes; but, on the contrary, sedulous care...