Yazoo & Mississippi Vally Railroad Co. v. City of Vicksburg

• Decision Date: 03 May 1909
• Docket Number: 13,783
• Citation: 95 Miss. 701,49 So. 185
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF VICKSBURG
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

49 So. 185

95 Miss. 701

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF VICKSBURG

No. 13,783

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 3, 1909

FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. JOHN N. BUSH, Judge.

The city of Vicksburg, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

The suit was for the recovery of municipal taxes alleged to be due the city by the railroad company on its property within the municipal limits for the years 1902 to 1907, both inclusive, as shown by independent municipal assessments for said years. The city of Vicksburg has never adopted the chapters, entitled "Municipalities" in the Codes of 1892 and 1906, but has for its charter special acts of the legislature enacted before the Constitution of 1890 became operative by the terms of which the city is empowered to assess property for municipal taxes.

The defendant's demurrer to the declaration was overruled in the court below; it declined to plead further and judgment final was rendered against it.

Reversed, demurrer sustained, and remanded.

Mayes &amp Longstreet, for appellant.

The city claims on the basis of its own assessment, and the railroad company demands to settle on the basis of the assessment of the railroad commission.

The claim of the city is based upon its special charter, being the act of 1884, page 422, et seq., particularly sections 7, 30, and 32.

We do not question the proposition that if the city's charter stood unaffected by any subsequent legislation the city would have the power to make the assessment which it has made and the railroad company would have to pay accordingly.

We claim that so far as those provisions contained in the charter providing for the taxation of railroads on an assessment locally made by the city taxing officials are concerned, a repeal has been made by the provisions of the Constitution of 1890 and by the resultant provisions of the Codes of 1892 and 1906, respectively.

Section 112 of the Constitution is pertinent. It provides that taxation shall be uniform and equal throughout the state that property shall be taxed in proportion to its value; that property shall be assessed for taxes under general laws, and by uniform rules according to its true value; but that the legislature may provide for a special mode of valuation and assessment for railroads, etc.

Then the Code of 1892 carries out that provision in respect to the taxation of railroads. Section 3875 provides for the filing before the railroad commission of schedules, and it is expressly required that those schedules shall show the mileage in each city, town, or village, and the value of the whole, and of each part thereof, etc.; the number of depot buildings and warehouses; in what county, city, town, or village located, etc.; and the value of the same including the lands and lots; the value of machine shops and car shops and stationary machinery and tools, and in what city, town or village, located, etc.

In short, this paragraph requires the localization before the railroad commission of all of these properties.

Of what use would it be to state to the railroad commission exactly what part of the railroad property lies in what city, town or village if the railroad commission were not intended to assess that property distinct from the general assessment made by it on the railroad as a whole, or even on the railroad as subdivided into such sections as shall lie within the limits of a county?

For instance: What sense is there in requiring that these assessment lists shall show whether the roundhouse and machine shops at Vicksburg lie within the corporate limits or lie without the corporate limits, supposing that they were within Warren county, unless the railroad commission was to assess for city taxation?

That is not all. Section 3880 expressly requires that the state railroad assessors, being the railroad commission, shall on or before the first Monday of June, in each year, make out for each county an assessment roll of such property, both real and personal, on which roll it is expressly directed that the property in cities, towns and villages shall be distinguished; and that such roll shall be so made that each county, levee district, and municipality shall receive its just share of such taxes proportionately to the amount of the property therein situated.

Note the expression that each municipality shall receive its just share of such taxes; manifestly meaning its just share of the taxes assessed by the railroad commission.

If the railroad commission are not assessors of railroad property for city taxation, then why require them to trouble with the question whether a roundhouse or a machine shop, being within the limits of a certain county, lies inside or outside of a certain municipality?

It is manifest that this scheme contemplates that the railroad commission shall assess property of this nature for city taxation.

The subsequent sections require that such assessment roll made out shall be sent down to the counties and there placed on file. The sections do not require that such assessment rolls shall be sent to the various municipalities; but the manifest intention is that by sending them down to the chancery clerks of the counties they will practically be brought home to each municipality in such county. It was unnecessary to multiply copies and vastly increase the tax assessment literature, as would have been done by requirement that copies should be sent to each municipality.

Looking at the scheme as a whole, we submit that the railroad commission is, under this chapter (and the same provisions are brought forward into the Code of 1906) constituted assessor of railroad property, even for cities and municipalities.

The fact that the railroad commission has made this assessment is a practical interpretation of these statutes by that administrative body, which we take it is quite as persuasive as the other practical construction which is invoked in the plaintiff's declaration of the fact that it has made assessments also.

There is every reason why the administration of the taxing system for which we contend should be...