A. CONSTRUCTION OF STATutes.
1. Statutes granting privileges or relinquishing rights of the public are to be strictly construed against the grantee. Wisconsin Central Railroad Co. v. United States, 190.
2. An intention to surrender the right to demand the carriage of mails over subsidized railroads at reasonable rates, assumed in construing a statute of the United States, is opposed to the established policy of Congress. Ib.
3. The punctuation of a statute is not decisive of its meaning. Ford v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 662.
See DIRECT TAX REFUNDING ACT, 2.
B. STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED JURISDICTION, A, 1, 2, 12; B, 6;
MAILS, TRANSPORTATION OF, MORTGAGE, 2, 3;
DIRECT TAX REFUNDING ACT, NATIONAL Bank, 1;
PUBLIC LAND, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15.
C. STATUTES OF STATES ANDd TerritorieES.
See JURISDICTION, A, 9.
See TAX AND TAXATION, 3 to 10. See LOCAL LAW, 1.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2, 7, 9; JURISDICTION, A, 3.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14. See TAX AND TAXATION, 1.
See PUBLIC LAND, 15.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 13.
Massachusetts. See NATIONAL BANK, 1.
1. Section eighteen of the act of the legislature of Georgia of December 14, 185, providing that no municipal or other corporation shall have power to tax the stock of the Central Railroad and Banking Com- pany of Georgia, but may tax any property, real or personal, of said company within the jurisdiction of said corporation in the ratio of taxation of like property, when construed in connection with other legislation on that subject, permits municipal corporations to tax such property within their respective jurisdictions in the ratio of taxation of like property. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Wright, 327. 2. While, in the absence of any words showing a different intent, an exemption of the stock or capital stock of a corporation may imply, and carry with it, an exemption of the property in which such stock is invested, yet, if the legislature uses language at variance with such intention, the courts, which will never presume a purpose to exempt any property from its just share of the public burdens, will construe any doubts which may arise as to the proper interpretation of the charter against the exemption. Ib.
3. In proceedings in Arizona to enforce the collection of taxes assessed upon real estate, a printed copy of the delinquent list, instead of the original filed in the office of the county treasurer, was offered in evi- dence. To the introduction of this objection was made, but not upon the ground that the original was the best evidence, or that the copy offered was not an exact copy. In this court it was for the first time objected that the list, as filed in this case, was not a copy of the origi- nal. Held, that this court would not disturb the judgment of the court below on such technical grounds, apparently an afterthought. Maish v. Arizona, 599.
4. For the hearing of the objections of the appellants against the assess- ment of the tax the court convened on the 14th of March. The notice published by the tax collector was that the sale would begin on the 20th of March. On March 15 a judgment was entered direct- ing the sale on the 20th of all the property, to which no objection had been filed. As to those parties making objections (and included among them were the present appellants) the case was set down for hearing at a subsequent day, and a trial then had; but the judgment was not entered until the 7th day of May, 1892, and the order was to sell on the 13th day of June. Held, that the purpose and intention of the act being the collection of taxes, but only of such taxes as ought to be collected, and judicial determination having been invoked to determine what taxes were justly due, the fact that the court took time for the examination and consideration of this question did not oust it of jurisdiction. Ib.
5. In Arizona the delinquent tax list is made by law prima facie evidence that the taxes charged therein are due against the property, as well the unpaid taxes for past years as those for the current year. Ib.
6. It was the intention of the legislature of Arizona, and a just inten- tion, that no property should escape its proper share of the bur- den of taxation by means of any defect in the tax proceedings, and that, if there should happen to be such defect, preventing for the time being the collection of the taxes, steps might be taken in a subsequent year to place them again upon the tax roll and collect them. lb.
7. The testimony does not sustain the contention that the board of equali- zation raised the value of appellants' property arbitrarily and without notice or evidence. Ib.
8. A party in possession under a perfect Mexican grant, that is, a grant absolute and unconditional in form specific in description of the land, passing a certain definite and unconditional title from the Mexican government to the grantee, has a possessory and equitable right suffi- cient to sustain taxation, although the grant may not have been con- firmed. lb.
9. A court cannot strike down a levy of taxes said to be for the payment of interest on bonds illegally issued in violation of statutory law, with- out a full disclosure of all the indebtedness, the time when it arose, and the circumstances under which it was created. Ib.
10. To warrant the setting aside of an assessment as unfair and partial, something more than an error of judgment must be shown, something indicating fraud or misconduct; as matters of that kind are left largely to the discretion and judgment of the assessing and equalizing board, and if it has acted in good faith its judgment cannot be overthrown. lb.
11. Exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed, and no claims for them can be sustained unless within the express letter or the necessary scope of the exempting clause; and a general exemption is to be con- strued as referring only to the property held for the business of the party exempted. Ford v. Delta & Pine Land Company, 662.
12. The exemption from taxation conferred by the 19th section of the act of the legislature of Mississippi of November 23, 1859, c. 14, upon the railroad company chartered by that act, does not extend to prop- erty other than that used in the business of the company, acquired under the authority of a subsequent act of the legislature in which there was no exemption clause. Ib.
13. A clause in a statute exempting property from taxation does not release it from liability for assessments for local improvements. Ib. 14. It has been held in Mississippi not only that special assessments for local improvements do not come within a constitutional limitation as to taxation, but also that the construction and repair of levees are to be regarded as local improvements for which the property specially. benefited may be assessed; and this rule is in harmony with that recognized generally elsewhere to the effect that special assessments for local improvements are not within the purview of either con-
stitutional limitations in respect of taxation, or general exemptions from taxation.
15. Under authority granted by the act of March 16, 1872, c. 75, of the legislature of Mississippi, the auditor conveyed to the Selma, Marion and Memphis Railroad Company the lands in question here, by deeds which recited that they had been "sold to the State of Mississippi for taxes due to the said State," and that the company had paid into the state treasury two cents per acre “in full of all state and county taxes due thereon to present date." No reference was made in those deeds to levy taxes on assessments. Held, that those deeds were no evidence of the prior payment and discharge of such levy taxes and assess- ments. lb.
16. The decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Green v. Gibbs, 151 Mississippi, 592, followed as it was by subsequent decisions of that court, is not only binding upon this court, but commends itself to the judgment of this court as a just recognition of the force of legislative contracts. Ib.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8;
DIRECT TAX REFUNDING ACT.
See JURISDICTION, B, 5;
MAILS, TRANSPORTATION OF, 1.
« PreviousContinue » |