Stewart v. Common School District No. 17 of Owyhee County, 7190

• Decision Date: 15 February 1945
• Docket Number: 7190
• Citation: 66 Idaho 118,156 P.2d 194
• Parties: ERNEST STEWART, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 OF OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO, and GEM HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 3, sometimes known as Road District No. 3, Interveners and Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

156 P.2d 194

66 Idaho 118

ERNEST STEWART, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 OF OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO, and GEM HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 3, sometimes known as Road District No. 3, Interveners and Appellants

No. 7190

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 15, 1945

1. Statutes

Generally a change in phraseology of a statute indicates changed legislative intent.

2. Taxation

Under statute requiring that equities in state land shall be assessed at that proportion of full cash value of land which amount paid thereon bears to total amount of purchase price contract purchase price was properly employed for purpose of ascertaining the proportion or percentage of purchaser's equity in the land purchased from state and that proportion or percentage of the full cash value of land was properly determined to be the full cash value of purchaser's equity in the land. (I.C.A., secs. 56-320, 61-102; 61-1123 as amended by Sess. Laws 1941, chaps. 84, 85.)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of Idaho, in and for Owyhee County. Hon. Charles E. Winstead Judge.

Affirmed.

Laurence N. Smith and John D. Ewing for interveners and appellants.

The interest of a purchaser under a contract of sale with a state may be taxed even though the constitution of the State provides that the property of the State is exempt from taxation. (Lewis v. Christopher, 30 Ida. 197, 163 P. 916; Prescott v. Beebe, 17 Kan. 320; Washington Iron-Works v. King County, 20 Wash. 150, 54 P. 1004; Courtney v. Missoula County, 21 Mont. 591, 55 P. 359.)

The amendment of a statute carries the assumption that the legislature intended the statute as amended to have a different meaning than theretofore accorded to it. (Anderson v. Rayner, 60 Ida. 706, 96 P.2d 244; United Pacific Insurance Company v. Bakes, 57 Ida. 537, 67 P.2d 1024; Moody v. State Highway Department, 56 Ida. 21, 48 P.2d 1108.)

Geo. H. van de Steeg for respondent.

The settled policy in this state for over fifty years has been to permit the interest or equity of purchasers of state lands to be taxed. (Sec. 477, Idaho Code of 1901; secs. 1643 and 1586, Idaho Revised Codes; secs. 2920 and 3282, Idaho Compiled Statutes (1919) ; sec. 56-320, I.C.A.; sec. 61-1123, I.C.A.; chap. 84 and 85, Sess. Laws 1941.)

Whatever the legislature meant or intended by the 1941 amendment, it certainly cannot be said that, from the language used, the method or formula contended for by the intervenors, i.e., that prescribed by the amendment of 1913, was re-enacted, re-created or revived. (Sc. 158, chap. 58, p. 226, Sess. Laws of 1913; In re Winton Lumber Co., 63 P.2d 664, 57 Ida. 131.)

The legislature is presumed to know the prior construction of the original act, and if words in the act amended that had been previously construed are repeated in the amendment, it is considered that the legislature adopted the prior construction of the word. In this case the word "equities" was construed by this court many years ago and there is nothing in the amendments to clearly indicate a change or repudiation of that construction. (Horack's 3d. Ed. of Sutherland's Statutory Construction, sec. 1933 at p. 429; Lewis v. Christopher, 30 Ida. 197, 163 P. 916.)

Milo Axelson, Prosecuting Attorney, for Owyhee County.

Holden, J. Ailshie, C.J., concurs in affirmance of the judgment. Givens, J., special concurrence. Budge, J., dissenting. Miller, J., concurs in this dissent.

OPINION

Holden, J.

This suit was commenced February 22, 1943 against O. F. Brunzell, as Assessor of Owyhee County and the County of Owyhee, a body corporate, to cancel and set aside an assessment and tax levied in pursuance thereof. Thereafter the demurrer of the defendants to respondent's complaint was argued and overruled, and the Assessor and the County having failed to answer within the time granted by the court their default was duly and regularly entered.

October 11, 1943, Common School District No. 17 and Gem Highway District No. 3 filed a petition for leave to intervene in the cancellation suit. October 11, 1943, an order was entered granting leave to intervene. October 11, 1943, the interveners answered the complaint. The cause was tried November 8, 1943. Thereafter the trial court made and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. We quote the conclusions of law pertinent to this appeal:

"That the value of plaintiff's equity in said lands as determined by the assessor and equalized by the county commissioners is unauthorized by law, erroneous and excessive; that said defendants are required by law and are hereby directed -- fix and determine such value by ascertaining the proportion or percentage of plaintiff's ownership based upon the amount paid on the land sale certificate and the total purchase price therein specified; that on that basis the plaintiff has paid 21.3% of the purchase price and is the owner of a 21.3% equity in said lands; that the determination of said defendants that the full cash value of the lands for purposes of taxation was the sum of $ 1440.00 should be and hereby is accepted and approved; that 21.3% of said sum of $ 1440.00, or the sum of $ 306.72, is the value that said defendants should have and hereby are required to determine as the value of plaintiff's said equity in said lands; that the taxes due and payable from plaintiff for the year 1942 must be computed upon said valuation of $ 306.72; that so computed the amount of such taxes due from the plaintiff for the year 1942, including the taxes on the improvements on said lands and on plaintiff's personal property, are the sum of $ 29.42; that the plaintiff having paid to defendants, but under the protest, the sum of $ 74.91 is entitled to recover back from the defendants the difference, or the sum of $ 45.49."

November 9, 1943, judgment was rendered and entered in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made and entered, as aforesaid, from which the interveners prosecuted an appeal to this court.

To quote appellants "the only point on this appeal is the construction of certain statutes of the State of Idaho which control the assessment of lands sold by the State of Idaho under contract of sale." The sections referred to by appellants are sec. 56-320, I.C.A. and sec. 61-1123, I.C.A., as amended by the 1941 Session of the Legislature (S. L. 1941, pp. 158, 159).

Sec. 56-320, I.C.A., provided:

. "Lands exempt from taxation. All lands sold under the provisions of this chapter shall be exempt from taxation for and during the period of time in which the title to said land is vested in the state of Idaho, but the value of the interest therein of the purchaser may be taxed, which interest shall be determined by the amount paid on such land and the amount invested in improvements thereon at the date of such assessment."

Sec. 61-1123, I.C.A., provided:

[61-1123]. "Assessment of equities in state lands. -- Equities in state land shall be assessed at that proportion of the full cash value of the land which the amount paid thereon bears to the total amount of the purchase-price. Refusal to pay the tax levied upon any equity in state land by the owner upon demand by the tax collector shall operate as forfeiture of such equity. Any such refusal shall be reported to the state board of land commissioners by the tax collector and the said board shall thereupon declare such forfeiture and the certificate and contract relating thereto annulled in the same manner as in the case of failure of a purchaser of state land to make any of the payments stipulated and provided in section 56-316."

Sec. 56-320, supra, as amended, provides:

. "LANDS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. -- All lands sold under the provisions of this chapter shall be exempt from taxation for and during the period of time in which the title to said land is vested in the State of Idaho, but the value of the interest therein of the purchaser * shall be taxed, which interest shall be * * * * assessed for purposes of taxation as other property is assessed and the improvements thereon * * * * shall also be taxed."

And sec. 61-1123, as amended, provides:

[61-1123]. "ASSESSMENT OF EQUITIES IN STATE LANDS. -- Equities in state land shall be assessed at * * * * their full cash value * * * * as other property is assessed. Refusal to pay the tax levied upon any equity in state land by the owner upon demand by the tax collector shall operate as forfeiture of such equity. Any such refusal shall be reported to the state board of land commissioners by the tax collector and the said board shall thereupon declare such forfeiture and the certificate and contract relating thereto annulled in the same manner as in the case of failure of a purchaser of state land to make any of the payments stipulated and provided in sec. 56-316 *, as amended."

It will be noted sec. 56-320, I.C.A., expressly exempted state lands from taxation during the period the title to the land was vested in the State of Idaho, but provided, nevertheless, the value of the interest of a purchaser of state lands should be taxed, and that such interest "shall be determined by the amount paid on such land and the amount invested in improvements thereon at the date of such assessment." It will also be noted the legislature in amending sec. 56-320, supra, retained the provision expressly exempting lands sold by the state from taxation during the period the title to the land was vested in the state, and that the amendment also retained the provision that the value of the interest of the purchaser should be taxed. It will be further noted that while the legislature, in amending that section, expressly struck therefrom the provision which provided exactly how the interest of a purchaser of state land should be determined,...