Watkins v. Barrow

• Decision Date: 14 June 1917
• Citation: 92 S.E. 908
• Parties: WATKINS, Treasurer, et al. v. BARROW et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

(121 Va. 236)

92 S.E. 908

WATKINS, Treasurer, et al.

v.BARROW et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince Edward County.

Bill by H. E. Barrow and others, taxpayers of the town of Farmville, against S. W. Watkins and others, Treasurer and Board of Supervisors of the County of Prince Edward, to enjoin the collection of a tax. Decree in favor of complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Meredith & Cocke and S. A. Anderson, all of Richmond, for appellants.

J. M. Crute and E. Warren Wall, both of Farmville, and Hill Carter, of Richmond, for appellees.

PRENTIS, J. The question here involved is whether or not the authorities of the county of Prince Edward can levy and collect a county road tax for the year 1915 of the owners of real and personal property located within the corporate limits of the town of Farmville, in that county, and arises under a bill filed by certain taxpayers of the town of Farmville against the treasurer and board of supervisors of the county. The trial court adjudged the tax to be illegal and void, and enjoined its collection.

The statute under which the board of supervisors claims its authority reads thus:

"The board of supervisors of each county shall annually levy, along with the county-levy, a road tax upon the property, real and personal, subject to local taxation in their county and not included within the corporate limits of any town in such county which maintains its own streets." Code 1904, § 914a, cl. 11, as amended by act approved March 15, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 121).

It is claimed by the appellants that the language of the act quoted, which exempts taxable property in towns which maintain their own streets from county road taxes, is in violation of section 168 of the Constitution, which provides that:

"All property, except as hereinafter provided, shall be taxed; all taxes, whether state, local or municipal, shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws."

This clause of the Constitution simply makes more explicit the general doctrine of law which had already received the approval of this court in the case of Day v. Roberts, 101 Va. 249, 43 S. E. 362.

So far "as here involved, the uniformity clauses in the Constitutions of 1869 and 1902 are substantially similar. Moss v. Tazewell County, 112 Va. 883, 72 S. E. 945.

A precisely similar question was decided by this court in the case of Board of Supervisors of Washington Co. v. Saltville Land Co., 99 Va. 640, 39 S. E. 704. That case determined that section 2 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1869, which authorized the boards of supervisors to fix county levies, did not restrain the General Assembly from creating the town of Saltville, in Washington county, a separate taxing district, and relieving property in the town from all taxation for maintaining the county roads outside of the town, upon condition that it maintain its own streets.

Any possible confusion which may arise from a comparison of isolated expressions of this court from time to time grows out of the failure to distinguish between county levies and other special taxes levied by boards of supervisors. While, in a general sense, all such taxes are either county or district levies, at the same time the words "county levy, " as generally used in this state, mean the tax levied upon the property of the taxpayers of the county for the purpose of paying the general county expenses, such as the salaries of county officials, the maintenance of courthouses, and those general expenses by which all of the citizens of the county are benefited, whether they live in an incorporated town constituting a part of the county or outside of such town.

The question decided in Day v. Roberts, supra, arose under these circumstances: The General Assembly undertook to amend the charter of the town of Smithfield, providing that property therein should not only be exempt from poor rates, road tax and school tax, but also from the county expenses for any year, provided the town should, at its own expense, provide for its poor and maintain its own streets. The board of supervisors did not undertake to levy any poor rates or any road tax upon the property located in the town of Smith-field, but did undertake to subject that property to the county levy for general county purposes, and also levied a school tax. No question was raised In that case, either in this court or in the court below, as to the validity of the charter so far as it undertook to exempt the taxpayers of Smithfield from poor rates and road tax. This court decided that the Legislature had no power to exempt property in a town within the limits of a county and forming a part thereof from county school taxes or county levies, as distinguished from district levies. This language is used by Judge Buchanan in delivering the opinion of the court:

"Constitutional provisions similar to the one now under consideration have frequently been before the courts. The settled constructionplaced upon them is that uniform taxation requires uniformity not only in the rate of taxation, and in the mode of assessment upon the taxable valuation, but that uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which it applies. If a tax is imposed by the state it must be uniform over the whole state; if by a county, city, town, or other subordinate district, the tax must be uniform throughout the territory to which it is applicable. Knowlton v. Board of Supervisors, 9 Wis. 410, 420, 421; Bright v. McCullough, 27 Ind. 223, 230; Exchange Bank, etc., v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 15; Sleight v. People, 74 111. 47; Dyar v. Farmington, 70 Me. 515; Hutchinson v. Ozark Co. 22 S. W. 173. 38 Am. St. Rep. 258; Pine Grove, etc., V. Talcott, 19 Wall. 676, 22 L. Ed. 227; Cooley on Tax (2d Ed.) 244, 141; Cooley's Const. Lim. (6th Ed.) 610; 1 Desty on Tax., § 35, p. 173; Burroughs on Taxation, 61, 62."

In ...