Webster v. Williams

• Decision Date: 15 April 1937
• Docket Number: 14467.
• Parties: WEBSTER v. WILLIAMS, Tax Collector, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

191 S.E. 51

183 S.C. 368

WEBSTER v. WILLIAMS, Tax Collector, et al.

No. 14467.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 15, 1937

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; M. M Mann, Judge.

Action by Mabel S. Webster against C. H. Williams, as Collector of Delinquent Taxes for Orangeburg County, and another. From an order dismissing the summons and complaint, the plaintiff appeals.

Order reversed, and cause remanded.

C. E Summers, of Orangeburg, for appellant.

Adam H Moss and James A. Moss, both of Orangeburg, for respondents.

BAKER Justice.

The questions presented in this case involve the constitutionality of a portion of a statute, applicable only to Orangeburg county, which undertakes to add 1 per cent. per month to all delinquent taxes, in addition to the fees and penalties provided by the general law, after the same have been placed in execution.

The appellant is the owner of certain real estate in school district No. 26, in the county of Orangeburg, the said real estate being returned in her name for taxes and the taxes charged in her name upon the books of the auditor and treasurer, respectively, for Orangeburg county. The taxes on this land went into execution for the years 1932, 1933, and 1934, in the following amounts, respectively, $56.75; $42.19, and $61.87; and three installments of back taxes for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, in execution in the amount of $66.02. Included in the above amounts is "an interest charge" of one per cent. per month on the taxes beginning from the date that the executions were placed in the hands of the collector of delinquent taxes for Orangeburg county. The appellant, in paying these executions, paid under protest the "one (1%) per cent. per month," which amounted to a total of $36.30, for the year 1932, $13.02; for 1933, $6.80; for 1934, $5.94; and for the three installments for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, $10.54. Appellant brought an action for the recovery of the said sum of $36.30, alleging, among other matters, that the acts hereafter referred to, under the authority of which the amount sued for was collected, are unconstitutional, in that subdivisions 9 and 10, section 34 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1895, are violated; and that said acts violate section 5, article 1 of the Constitution of 1895 of South Carolina, and section 1, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The answer of respondents admitted each and every fact alleged in appellant's complaint, and denied each and every conclusion.

On an "Agreed Statement of Facts" the case came on to be heard before Honorable M. M. Mann, circuit judge, who ordered the summons and complaint dismissed, from which order an appeal is taken to this court.

Under the terms of an act passed in 1932 (Act No. 886, p. 1539), the office of tax collector for Orangeburg county was created (section 1) and in this act it is provided that, beginning with the year 1933, the county treasurer shall issue all tax executions for delinquent taxes to the tax collector of the county (section 3). After providing that the county treasurer shall add to the amount of each delinquent tax execution $2 in lieu of the costs heretofore provided by law for the county treasurer and the sheriff (in addition to the penalties provided by law [section 3]), it requires the tax collector to "add and collect interest at the rate of one (1%) per cent. per month, or fraction thereof, upon the amount of any execution from the date such execution is issued until final payment is made, such interest to be calculated only upon the balance remaining unpaid where he has accepted installment payments." Section 4.

In passing, attention may be called to the limited title of this act, which is as follows: "An Act to Create the Office of Tax Collector in Orangeburg County, to Provide for the Appointment and Compensation of Such Officer and to Define His Duties."

This act was approved April 13, 1932. At the same session of the Legislature an additional statute was passed (No. 896, p. 1560), providing in general for the payment of delinquent taxes in annual installments. This act was approved May 5, 1932, and it is provided therein that delinquent taxes may be paid in annual installments over a period of ten years "without accumulated interest charges, except that in the event any execution for current taxes and the yearly installment of delinquent taxes for any year shall be issued to the Tax Collector of Orangeburg County, he shall add thereto and collect one per cent. per month or fraction thereof, from the date of the said execution until same shall have been paid to him in full by any taxpayer, upon the amount of such execution and upon the amount of any balance, if such execution shall be paid in installments. The same interest charge of one per cent. per month shall also be made and collected upon all current taxes in execution due by any person, firm or corporation, or charged against any property in Orangeburg County, also where no annual installments of delinquent taxes are due." Section 5.

The title of this act is as follows: "An Act to Provide for the Determination and Refunding of Delinquent Taxes in Orangeburg County and the Payment of the Same in Annual Installments; and to Provide a Method of Crediting the Payments so Collected to the Purposes for Which the Original Levies Were Made."

In 1933, by Act No. 401, p. 561, of the Acts of that year, approved June 12, 1933, the office of tax collector for Orangeburg county is abolished (Section 1), and in the place of such office a "Collector of Delinquent Taxes" is provided for. Section 3. The act devolves the duties of the former "Tax Collector" upon the "Collector of Delinquent Taxes." Section 1. In this act it is provided that "* * * fees and charges heretofore allowed the Treasurer, the Sheriff or Tax Collector shall be charged, collected and paid in to the general fund of the County as now provided by law." Section 2. There is no specific provision in this statute relating to the one per cent. per month to be added to the delinquent taxes, but in the lower court it was assumed by both parties and by the court that the quoted language carries into the 1933 enactment, and continues in effect, the one per cent. imposition provided by the 1932 enactment.

The title of the 1933 act is as follows: "An Act to Abolish the Office of Tax Collector for Orangeburg County, to Provide for a Collector of Delinquent Taxes, and His Appointment, Fix His Compensation, and Define His Duties."

The titles of the several statutes have been quoted, although their sufficiency under article 3, § 17, of the Constitution, have not been challenged, because of the bearing of the absence of any reference in the titles to the item in question upon the contention of the respondents that the one per cent. is an additional tax on delinquent tax payers, as distinguished from a penalty, and as such is sustainable as a tax within the provisions of article 10, § 6, of the Constitution.

The legislation is attacked under various provisions of the Constitution, some of which are properly pleaded, and some of which are not, but in the view that we take of the matter it suffices to deal with the question whether the statute violates the provisions of article 3, § 34, subd. 9, of the Constitution.

After enumerating eight (seven, with subdivision 8 stricken out) classes of legislation which may not be made the subject of local or special laws, the above-mentioned section provides (subdivision 9): "In all other cases, where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted."

The object of the Legislature in passing the statutes in question obviously was to promote the more prompt and efficient collection of delinquent taxes, by imposing a new burden on a percentage basis, that would increase every month that the delinquency continued after the taxes went into execution. Whether we regard the provision as one imposing a penalty for delinquency, or as one undertaking to classify taxpayers for the purpose of taxation, the fact remains that the Legislature was not undertaking to legislate upon the general subject of taxation for the purpose of meeting the expense of operation of the county, but was providing a stimulant to accelerate the painful process of collecting delinquent taxes, and preventing future delinquencies of a high and aggravated nature.

This undoubtedly is a subject within the legislative province, and one requiring legislative action. Accordingly, we find that to meet the very purposes of the legislation now in question the...