State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 17 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 374. |
| Citation | 140 So. 584,224 Ala. 357 |
| Parties | STATE v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Petition of T. Harvey Wright, as guardian of Jeff H. King, a non compos mentis, to set aside an assessment of lands of the ward for taxation. From a judgment for petitioner, the State appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Frontis H. Moore, Asst. Atty Gen., and Claud D. Scruggs, of Albertville, for the State.
T Harvey Wright, of Guntersville, for appellee.
The guardian of J. H. King, a person non compos mentis and a World War veteran, purchased the eighty acres of land, the subject of this controversy, with money received by the guardian under the World War Adjusted Compensation Act (USCA title 38), for the use and maintenance of said King as a disabled and dependent soldier.
The land, which is situated in Marshall county, was duly and regularly assessed by the taxing authorities for state and county taxes, in the face of objection made by the guardian that said land was exempt from taxation. The guardian failed or refused to pay the taxes, and after they had become delinquent the tax authorities certified this land, along with others, to the probate court for an order of sale. The guardian of King appeared before the probate court and again asserted that the lands were exempt from taxation under the provisions of said act of Congress, and his objection to the assessment was dismissed and order of sale entered. He then appealed to the circuit court, where his contention was renewed, and the circuit court sustained the contention and vacated and annulled the decree of the probate court, and from that judgment the state and county of Marshall prosecute this appeal.
The first contention of the appellant is that the probate court was without jurisdiction to vacate and annul the assessment, which was regular on its face, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.
It is a sufficient answer to this contention that that court had jurisdiction to enter the decree which it did enter, and that decree is sufficient to support the appeal to the circuit court. Moreover, if the act of Congress authoritatively withdraws this property from the subjects of taxation by the state, and destroys the state's authority to assess it, as appellee contends, the taxing authorities exceeded their power, and their acts would be void.
The guardian rests his contention that the lands are not subject to taxation on the provisions of sections 454 and 618, 38 USCA. The first provides that: " The compensation, insurance, and maintenance and support allowance payable under Parts II, III, and IV, respectively, shall not be assignable; shall not be subject to the claims of creditors of any person to whom an award is made under Parts II, III, or IV; and shall be exempt from all taxation, " etc. (Italics supplied.) USCA, title 38, § 454, page 217.
The other section provides: " No sum payable under this chapter to a veteran or his dependents, or to his estate, or to any beneficiary named under Part V of this chapter, no adjusted service certificate, and no proceeds of any loan made on such certificate, shall be subject to attachment, levy, or seizure under any legal or equitable process, or to National or State taxation. " (Italics supplied.) USCA, title 38, page 276, § 618.
It is a well-settled rule of statutory interpretation, that provisions for exemption from taxation must be construed strictissimi juris, and claims of exemption not clearly within the import of the language of the statute must be rejected. 26 R. C. L. 313, § 274; Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 376, 13 L.Ed. 461; Bailey v. Magwire, 22 Wall. 215, 22 L.Ed. 850; Hoge v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 99 U.S. 348, 25 L.Ed. 303; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Loftin, 105 U.S. 258, 26 L.Ed. 1042; Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 662, 23 S.Ct. 386, 47 L.Ed. 641.
When this rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Bagnall's Guardianship
... ... cited in the guardian's resistance, it is manifest that, ... construing the Federal and State statutes together, pension ... money in the form of money or investments, is exempt from ... execution in Iowa. There can be no doubt that under ... 'The ... judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee disallowing the ... exemption has support in other courts. State v. Wright, 224 ... Ala. 357, 140 So. 584; Martin v. Guilford County, 201 N.C ... 63, 158 S.E. 847, 76 A.L.R. 978. There are decisions [238 Iowa ... 918] to ... ...
-
Ware Lodge No. 435, A.F. & A.M. v. Harper
...enactment, to charitable purposes. If the well settled rule of construction, strictissimi juris, is applied, this is all it means. State v. Wright, supra. ambiguous provision can not be construed to mean that the property acquired fifty years later was, or is, as a matter of law, dedicated ......
-
Henderson v. City of Missoula
... ... On February 10, 1922, Edmond J. Ouimet was adjudged ... incompetent by the district court of the Fourth judicial ... district of the state, and a guardian was appointed for him ... He continued under guardianship until his death. On January ... 30, 1930, his guardian was authorized to ... Wright, 224 Ala. 357, 140 So. 584; Martin v ... Guilford County, 201 N.C. 63, 158 S.E. 847, 76 A.L.R ... 978. There are decisions to the contrary, ... ...
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Montgomery
...144 So. 575, the claim of exemptions was allowed to the widow of the beneficiary out of funds paid from such source; and in State v. Wright, 224 Ala. 357, 140 So. 584, holding was that land purchased for the use of a World War veteran, non compos mentis, with money received under the World ......