Waits v. Black Bayou Drainage Dist
| Decision Date | 22 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 33735 |
| Citation | 185 Miss. 626,189 So. 103 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WAITS v. BLACK BAYOU DRAINAGE DIST |
APPEAL from chancery court of Washington county HON. J. L. WILLIAMS Chancellor.
Suit by D. H. Waits against the Black Bayou Drainage District and its commissioners to enjoin defendants from enforcing the collection of certain assessments. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
D. H Waits, of Greenville, for appellant.
Comes D. H. Waits, appellant in the above styled cause, and says that he adopts the brief of the attorney-general, filed amicus curiae, as his brief in this cause.
W. W Pierce, Assistant Attorney General, amicus curiae.
The word "taxes" in its broadest sense includes drainage benefit assessments.
McLain v. Meletio, 166 Miss. 1.
The right to enforce payment of drainage benefit assessments is governed by the same general principles as that of state and county taxes, from which it necessarily follows that if state and county taxes are not collectible by the state while the title to the land is vested in the state, then by the same rule or token drainage districts have no right to reach back and proceed against such land for drainage district taxes for the period of time the title to the land was owned by the state by virtue of a tax sale for state, county and drainage district taxes.
The levy and collection of benefit assessments is purely a statutory proceeding in the derogation of the common law.
If it had been the intent of the Legislature that the assessments placed against any individual tract of land would run from year to year, regardless of whether it was subject to taxation for other purposes or not, then it would not have been necessary for the Legislature to have required that the board of supervisors make an annual levy sufficient to meet obligations of the district. The very fact that the Legislature provided that it should be the duty of the board of supervisors to make an annual tax levy at the same time county tax levies are made is persuasive that it was the intent of the Legislature to place such a levy on the lands within the district as would be sufficient to meet the obligations of the district.
The tax collector is required to collect drainage taxes at the same time he collects state and county taxes. He is enjoined that he shall not accept any sum less than the aggregate amount of state, county and drainage district taxes. It is further clear that should any of the taxes including drainage taxes be not paid at maturity the tax collector shall sell the land for all taxes due thereon, including drainage taxes. If no person bid therefor the whole amount of taxes and all costs, the tax collector is required to strike the land off to the state. The owner is given the right to redeem both from the state and county taxes and drainage district taxes. If no redemption is effected, then the land commissioner is authorized to sell the land in the same manner as he sells other tax lands but is restricted in his right to sell such land for an amount less than the amount for which it was sold to the state.
Sections 4472 and 4488, Code of 1930; Robins v. Donovan Creek Dist. No. 2, 152 Miss. 872.
In order to arrive at the proper conclusion with reference to whether or not drainage taxes accrue on land while the title to such land is vested in the state, it is necessary to determine the status of drainage districts in their relation to the state.
In Standard Oil Co. v. National Surety Co., 143 Miss. 841, the court had before it this identical question and there arrived at the conclusion that a drainage district was a governmental agency and political subdivision of the state.
Therefore, accepting what the court there said as being the true status of drainage districts in their relation to the sovereign state from which the districts derive their power; and assuming that the word "taxes" in its broad sense includes drainage benefit assessments as the court so held in McLain v. Meletio, 166 Miss. 1; and further assuming that when land is sold to the state for non-payment of state, county and drainage district taxes, all taxes remain in abeyance while the title remains in the state, it would logically follow that good governmental policy would prohibit the accrual of taxes on property for any purpose while the title is vested in the state. That appears to be the policy in this state.
The court has jealously guarded this policy by consistently holding that when the title to property is vested in the state or a municipality it is exempt from taxation which means that taxes do not accrue thereon.
Meridian v. Phillips, 65 Miss. 362; Warren County v. Nall, 78 Miss. 726; Dees v. Kingman, 119 Miss. 199; Penick v. Willis Cotton Co., 119 Miss. 822; Alvis v. Hicks, 150 Miss. 306; Weems v. City of Laurel, 100 Miss. 335; Wildberger v. Shaw, 84 Miss. 442.
We realize that by section 3152, Mississippi Code of 1930, land sold to the state is required to be assessed at its proper value, if the time for redemption has not expired but this assessment is required only for purposes of redemption. The statute itself shows that to be the purpose of it. It is to safeguard the state and other political subdivisions in the collection of their revenue during that period of redemption, guaranteed to the owner by section 79 of the Constitution of 1890.
Carrier Lbr. Co. v. Quitman County, 156 Miss. 396.
Drainage districts are subordinate agencies of the state.
Standard Oil Co. v. National Surety Co., 143 Miss. 841; Howie v. Panola-Quitman Dr. Dist., 168 Miss. 387.
Taxes for general governmental purposes and for local improvements are alike in that the levy of each is in the exercise of the state's taxing power, and must be for a public purpose.
Cox v. Wallace, 100 Miss. 525; Howie v. Panola-Quitman Dr. Dist., 168 Miss. 387.
Can it be the law that a tax for one public purpose will accrue on real property while the title is in the state and at the same time will not accrue for another public purpose on the same land under the same circumstances? On what reasonable basis can such a rule be said to rest or have for its foundation?
When the land was sold by the state the land commissioner was required by statute (sections 4488 and 6044, Mississippi Code 1930, and chapter 174, Laws 1936) to certify the amount of taxes due the county, and subordinate taxing units including the drainage district, and it then becomes the duty of the auditor to issue his warrant in favor of the proper county and subordinate agencies. Therefore, when all the statutes are harmonized we are forced to the conclusion that drainage taxes like all other taxes do not accrue on land while the title is in the state.
For purposes of taxation generally, taxes on land, the title to which was in the state, is not collectible for any year in which the title was in the state of the first day of January.
Wildberger v. Shaw, 84 Miss. 442.
We realize that this court in Howie v. Panola-Quitman District, 168 Miss. 38, and in Covington v. Meletio, 168 Miss. 497, held that the sale of lands in a drainage district for state and county taxes did not relieve the land of the liens for drainage taxes thereafter to become due. The court also held that the lien for drainage taxes, and the lien for state and county taxes were of as nearly equal dignity as it was legislatively possible to make them; that neither of the liens necessarily displaces the other. For the purpose of this argument, we accept that at its face value but if that be true, where will the contentions of the appellee in this cause lead us to? If the drainage district can enforce payment of drainage taxes on land while the title is in the state, then the right of the drainage district is superior to that of the state. The drainage district as a subordinate agent of the state hath greater power than its creator, the state. This court would not for one moment entertain a claim by the state that it could go back and sell the land here included for state and county taxes for the years in which the title was vested in the state.
We would not for one moment contend before this court that the sale of the land to the state freed the land of the statutory lien placed thereon in the creation of the district and that is not our contention here. Our contention is that the drainage district cannot enforce collection of annual drainage tax levies made upon the land while the title is in the state because there is no person as contemplated by our statutes in ownership so that the taxes may attach as a valid obligation during the time the title is vested in the state.
Ernest Kellner, of Greenville, amicus curiae.
The bill of complaint was filed on March 6, 1939, and on the same day, without notice to the defendant and notwithstanding his decision in the former suit, between the same parties involving the same issues, that the taxes or assessments were collectible, the chancellor issued the fiat of injunction; on the same day the injunction bond was filed and the injunction issued upon which is endorsed acceptance of service; on the next day, March 7, 1939, the defendant filed its answer and motion to dissolve the injunction; one week later, on March 14, 1939, without any notice to him so far as the record discloses, the attorney-general was permitted to appear as amicus curiae in the cause, when the motion to dissolve the injunction was heard and sustained and a final decree entered dismissing the bill of complaint; the appeal bond was filed March 17, 1939.
In this connection the court will bear in mind that no appeal lies from the refusal to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eatherly v. Winn
... ... out for taxes other than drainage taxes. Drainage taxes do ... not constitute a personal ... ...
-
Evans v. Bankston
... ... main question involved is whether or not a drainage district, ... organized under the laws of this state, and ... a lien on the land until paid. Our Court held in Waits v ... Black Bayou Drainage Dist., 185 Miss. 626, 189 So ... ...
-
Willis Creek Drainage Dist. v. Yazoo County, 37622
...should be required to pay for the benefits which are assessed against these particular lands. In the case of Waits v. Black Bayon Drainage District, 185 Miss. 626, 189 So. 103, 107, where some of the land in the drainage district was sold to the State for delinquent taxes, and it was conten......