Wells v. Hyattsville Com'rs

• Citation: 26 A. 357,77 Md. 125
• Parties: WELLS ET AL. v. COMMISSIONERS OF HYATTSVILLE.
• Decision Date: 14 March 1893
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

26 A. 357

77 Md. 125

WELLS ET AL. v. COMMISSIONERS OF HYATTSVILLE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Prince George's county.

Petition by Charles A. Wells and others for mandamus to compel the commissioners of Hyattsville to restore to the assessment roll of 1892 the valuation of real-estate improvements, and to complete the assessment by an assessment of personal property. From an order dismissing the petition, relators appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, BYRAN, IRVING, McSHERRY FOWLER, PAGE, and ROBERTS, JJ.

M Duckett, R. Ford Combs, and R. W. Habercom, for appellants.

C. H Stanley, M. R. Leverson, A. S. Niles, and Oscar Wolff, for appellee.

McSHERRY J.

By the act of 1886, c. 424, the general assembly created a municipal corporation in Prince George's county under the name of "The Commissioners of Hyattsville." The power to levy taxes for the support of the municipal government was granted to these commissioners, but the rate was restricted to 15 cents on the $100 of the assessed valuation of property. The taxable basis was declared to be the current assessment made or to be made for county purposes of the real and personal property located within the limits of the corporation. In 1890 the legislature, by chapter 355 of the Acts passed during that session, amended that provision of the charter which related to the taxable basis, and enacted that the treasurer and two assessors should annually assess "each and every piece of land separately, with the improvements thereon, and all personal property within said town, at a fair cash value," showing in the assessment "each piece of land and the improvements thereon separately, with the assessed value thereof, * * * and in the case of personal property the assessed value and the name of the owner thereof." An appeal to the board of commissioners by persons aggrieved by the assessment was provided for. The act of 1892, c. 285, purported to repeal the act of 1890, and in lieu thereof provided that the treasurer and assessors in 1892, and biennially thereafter, should assess each and every piece of land within said town separately, with the improvements thereon, at a fair cash value, and showing each piece of land and the improvements thereon separately, with the assessed value thereof, etc.; and by the succeeding section it was declared that the president of the board should give public notice of the completion of the assessment; that the assessment should thereupon be open to inspection, and that, if the owner of property felt aggrieved by the assessment of his property, he might appeal to the commissioners, and that "said board of commissioners are hereby constituted a final board of appeals, equalization, and control of said assessment, being empowered, with a political view for the government and benefit of the community, to make such deductions or exception from, and addition to, the assessment made by the assessors as they may deem just, and to correct errors or illegal assessments. Upon the making of the deductions or exceptions, addition, correction, and final completion of the assessment roll, the board of commissioners shall levy a tax upon all the property remaining embraced therein, not exceeding twenty-five cents per annum per one hundred dollars of the valuation thereof," etc. Under this statute the land included within the taxable limits of the town was assessed at $369,709, and the improvements at $180,000. Personal property was not assessed at all. When the assessment was completed, public notice was given by the president of the board "that any taxpayer considering himself aggrieved by said assessment may appeal to the board of commissioners of Hyattsville within fifteen days." After the expiration of the time named in this notice, and though no appeal had been taken by any taxpayer, the board of commissioners of their own motion struck from the assessment roll the entire valuation on improvements, and levied a tax of 25 cents on each $100 of the assessed value of the land.

Thereupon sundry taxpayers filed a petition in the circuit court for Prince George's county, praying that a mandamus might issue to compel the commissioners to restore the valuation of improvements to the assessable basis, and to assess and include all personal property, and to prohibit the collection of the taxes actually levied. An answer was filed, to which a demurrer was interposed, and upon a hearing the circuit court overruled the demurrer, and dismissed the petition for a mandamus. From that order this appeal was taken.

The adoption by the board of commissioners of Hyattsville of what is called the "single-tax system"--that is, a system under which the whole burden of taxation is imposed upon the land to the total exclusion of buildings improvements, and personal property -- is the proceeding which caused the petitioning taxpayers to make this application to the courts. It is obvious that the questions now brought before us are of more than ordinary interest, and are far from being of mere local importance. Apart from the preliminary inquiry as to whether a correct interpretation of the act of 1892, c. 285, warrants the exemption of all buildings and improvements in Hyattsville from municipal taxation, the broader one, involving the power of the legislature, under the declaration of rights, to impose the whole burden of taxation on one single class of property to the exclusion of all others, is distinctly presented. Now, the act of 1892 was manifestly never intended to confer, and does not in express terms confer, upon the board of commissioners of Hyattsville the authority to exempt from taxation the buildings and improvements situated within the limits of the corporation. On the contrary, it specifically directs the treasurer and assessors to assess every piece of land and every building or improvement separately,--that is, to assess both land and buildings, putting upon the land a valuation and upon the building a separate valuation, precisely as the general assessment law prescribed should be done in the valuation of the same class of property for the purposes of state and county taxation. Act 1867, c. 260, § 17. Upon the completion of the assessment the board of commissioners were authorized, as "a final board of appeals, equalization, and control," to hear appeals, and "make such deductions or exception from and addition to the assessment" as they might "deem just," and to "correct errors or illegal assessments;" and upon making "the deductions or exceptions, addition, correction, and final completion of the assessment roll" they were empowered to levy a tax of not more than 25 cents on the $100 "upon all the property remaining embraced in the assessment roll." These powers, except the one relating to the actual levy, are strictly confined to a revision of the assessment previously made by the treasurer and assessors. The property which the assessors are directed to assess is described; it is land and improvements. Both are required to be assessed, and they are to be assessed for the purposes of taxation. The assessors' valuations are subject to revision,--that is, to abatement or to increase,--or, if improperly made for any reason, as, for instance, because the property is beyond or partially beyond the limits of the town, to exception or exclusion totally or ratably. But this is very different from a complete exemption of buildings and improvements from all taxation. Because the commissioners may make deductions or exceptions from the assessors' valuations, it by no means follows that they may strike out those valuations altogether. To make deductions or exceptions from the valuations placed by the assessors on buildings and improvements implies that some part of the original valuation must remain, and does not mean that the entire assessment shall or can be expunged. Any other construction would not only lead to the greatest confusion, but would, if adopted, repudiate the long and well settled doctrine that exemptions from taxation are never presumed, and are only allowed when clearly and unequivocally granted. Mayor, etc. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 6 Gill, 288. It is not to be assumed, in the absence of a clearly-expressed intention, that the legislature designed to confer upon this board the broad power to exempt all improvements, in the face of the explicit provision that those improvements should be assessed, and assessed with a view of being included in the taxable basis. The possession of such a power under this act would necessarily...