The Missouri v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Miami
| Decision Date | 10 July 1903 |
| Docket Number | 13,220 |
| Citation | 73 P. 103,67 Kan. 434 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MIAMI |
Decided July, 1903.
Error from Miami district court; W. H. SHELDON, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. TAXATION--Valuation Raised by State Board of Equalization. Where the state board of equalization raises the assessed value of the property for any county, the board of county commissioners may use the valuation so fixed as a basis for making a levy for all purposes, but is not compelled to do so. If, in such case, the board of county commissioners does not adopt such valuation as a basis for a levy, the county clerk has authority, under section 7611 of the General Statutes of 1901, to determine the rate per cent upon the valuation as shown in his books, necessary to raise the taxes required for state purposes, and extend such rate per cent. upon the tax-rolls of the county upon all property therein.
2. TAXATION--State Board Only Equalizes Valuation. The state board of equalization does not determine the actual value of the taxable property in any county for the purpose of taxation. Its only duty is to equalize the valuation of the different counties.
3. TAXATION--Penalty Not in Violation of Constitution. The provision of section 1, article 11, of the constitution of the state of Kansas, that "the legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation," does not apply to or control the legislature in prescribing a penalty for the non-payment of taxes, or prohibit it from prescribing a greater penalty for the non-payment of taxes on one class of property than on another.
4. TAXATION--Legislature May Classify Property for Taxation. The legislature has the power to classify property as personal and real for the purpose of taxation, and in such classification it is not controlled by common-law distinctions between these classes of property.
T. N. Sedgwick, and J. E. Maxwell, for plaintiff in. error.
L. S. Harvey, and Alpheus Lane, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This action was brought to recover taxes and interest paid under protest by the plaintiff in error to the treasurer of Miami county. To the petition the defendant demurred. The demurrer was sustained and judgment rendered against plaintiff.
In 1896 the state board of railroad assessors assessed the railway property of the plaintiff in Miami county at $ 2420.40 per mile. The total valuation, upon this basis, was $ 200,124.11. The total valuation of taxable property in said county, except railroad property, as returned by the county clerk to the state auditor, was $ 3,782,071. The state board of equalization, for the purpose of equalization, raised the assessed value of the property as returned by the clerk, except railroad property, nine per cent., and apportioned to Miami county $ 21,071.17 as its proportion of state taxes. The board of county commissioners did not adopt this valuation as a basis for the levy; hence the clerk increased the rate per cent. of the levy. Plaintiff claims that by this act it was made to pay the same rate per cent. on a valuation nine per cent. higher than other property in the county for school-district, township, city and county purposes. On December 20, 1896, it tendered to the treasurer of said county the full amount of its taxes due for the year, less this excess of $ 612.03, and also less five per cent., the latter being the rebate on one-half thereof, which would not be due until June 20, 1897. The treasurer refused to accept such tender and demanded the additional sum of $ 612.03. To prevent the treasurer from adding a penalty for non-payment and issuing a warrant for the collection of its full amount of taxes, plaintiff paid the sum of $ 6030.11, less said $ 612.03, and then commenced an action to restrain the treasurer and board of county commissioners from collecting said additional sum of $ 612.03. This action was continued from time to time until November 30, 1900, when it was voluntarily dismissed. On the 18th of July, 1901, the treasurer of said county issued his warrant to collect the said $ 612.03, with fifty per cent. interest and penalty, making $ 1994.19.
The petition also contained the statement of a second cause of action based upon similar facts occurring in 1897, alleging payment of said claims under protest, and praying for judgment against the defendant for the two items, making a total of $ 2868.02, with interest.
Where the state board of equalization raises the valuation of the property of a county, under section 7702, General Statutes of 1901, the board of county commissioners is not bound to adopt that valuation in making a levy for state and other purposes, but the county clerk may proceed, under section 7611, General Statutes of 1901, to raise the rate per cent. sufficiently to provide the county's proportion of state taxes. (Geary County v. Railway Co., 62 Kan. 168, 61 P. 693.) Plaintiff contends that because the board of county commissioners did not raise the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the county, in accordance with the suggestion of the state board of equalization, but instead raised the rate per cent. of taxes, the plaintiff has been discriminated against and required to pay the higher rate per cent. on the full value of its property in said county, while other property-holders have been only required to pay the higher rate per cent. on the lower valuation fixed by the county officers.
This contention rests upon the assumption that the state board of equalization determines and fixes the valuation of the taxable property in the different counties; that it determined in this case that the assessed value of the property in Miami county, as returned by the county clerk was below its actual value, and raised it nine per cent., to its true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Yerian
...In respect to the penalties imposed the situation is very similar to that developed in the case of Railway Co. v. Miami County, 67 Kan. 434, 439, 73 P. 103. In that case the legislature prescribed a penalty for the nonpayment of taxes and the constitutionality of the provision was assailed ......
-
Sox v. Miracle
... ... from the District Court of La Moure County, J. A. Coffey, J ... Judgment ... subject-matter. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Miami ... County, 67 Kan ... assignment was approved by the Board of University and School ... said lands may present to the land commissioners ... of this state a certificate of the sheriff ... ...
-
In re Appeal Leo L. Yerian from Haw. Unemployment Relief
...is arbitrary.” In respect to the penalties imposed the situation is very similar to that developed in the case of Railway Co. v. Miami County, 67 Kan. 434, 439, 73 Pac. 103. In that case the legislature prescribed a penalty for the nonpayment of taxes and the constitutionality of the provis......
-
Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 80-4172
...on the railway right-of-way is classified as personal property for purposes of taxation by the State of Kansas. See Railway Co. v. Miami County, 67 Kan. 434, 73 P. 103 (1903). They believe this designation has long been to the advantage of the railroads and that this classification should n......