White River Lumber Company v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 20 December 1920
• Docket Number: 69
• Citation: White River Lumber Company v. Elliott, 226 S.W. 164, 146 Ark. 551 (Ark. 1920)
• Parties: WHITE RIVER LUMBER COMPANY v. ELLIOTT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

226 S.W. 164

146 Ark. 551

WHITE RIVER LUMBER COMPANY v. ELLIOTT

No. 69

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 20, 1920

Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Southern District; W. B Sorrells, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

The White River Lumber Company, a nonresident corporation brought this suit against R. H. Elliott, sheriff and collector of Arkansas County, Arkansas, to recover the sum of $ 2,121.51.

The complaint alleges that the collector of Arkansas County demanded of the plaintiff a tax of ten cents per acre upon its lands in said county upon the pretended authority of act 472 of the Legislature of 1917 amended by act No. 102 of the Legislature of 1919; that the defendant refused to permit the plaintiff to pay the taxes legally assessed against its lands unless it paid said illegal tax of ten cents per acre as aforesaid; that plaintiff paid said taxes under protest and notified the defendant at the time that he would be called upon to refund the amount so paid; that the defendant still has and retains in his possession the amount of said taxes and has not paid the same over to the county treasurer.The plaintiff alleges that the act under which the taxes so collected were levied is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and the plaintiff having declined to plead further, the demurrer was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff.The plaintiff has appealed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Buzbee Pugh & Harrison and A. S. Buzbee, for appellant.

The tax is unconstitutional, and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.The acts are unconstitutional.Article 16, § 5, Const. Ark.;art. 14, § 1, Const. U. S.They are clearly a discrimination against nonresidents of this State and clearly prohibited by the Constitution.

E. W. Brockman, for appellee.

The taxes, alleged to be an illegal demand, were paid voluntarily, with full knowledge of the facts, and the same can not now be recovered.107 Ark. 24 settles this case.The common law rule is settled by 97 U.S. 181;98 Id. 541.

OPINION

HART, J.(after stating the facts).

The decision of the circuit court was wrong.The Legislature of 1917 passed an act regulating the working of public roads and highways in Arkansas County, and providing a tax therefor.Acts of 1917, volume 2, page 2173.Section 1 provides that all nonresidents of the State of Arkansas owning land in Arkansas County shall pay an annual road tax of $ 4.50, and that said tax shall be collected in the same manner that other taxes are collected.

The Legislature of 1919 passed an act for the better working of roads in Arkansas County which is amendatory to the act passed in 1917.Special Acts of Arkansas, page 180.Section 2 of that act provides that the tax against nonresidents of the State of Arkansas owning land in Arkansas County as provided for in section 16 of act 472, approved March 28, 1917, shall be ten cents per acre per annum for each acre of land owned instead of $ 4.50 per owner.The section further provides that the tax shall be collected each year in the same manner as other taxes are collected.

The act is unconstitutional.Section 5, article 16 of the Constitution of 1874 provides that all property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the State.The section further provides that one...