ARK.] HAYNIE 'V . SURPLUS TRADING CO. 507 HAYNIE v. SURPLUS TRADING COMPANY. Opinion delivered June 27, 1927. 1. TAXATION — PERSO NAL PROPERTY ON MILITARY RESERVATION. — Pe r -sonal property privately owned within Camp Pike Military Reservation in Pulaski County, held not exempt from taxation by that county under Acts 1903, p. 346, §§ 1, 2, under which the reservation was acquired by the United States. 2. TAXATION — PERSO NAL PROPERTY OMITTED TROM TAX RoLL.—Personal property not placed on the tax roll was properly valued by the assessor under Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, when notified of the omission, without the assistance of a township board, under Acts 1919, p. 132.
1 508 HAYNIE v. SURPLUS TRADING Co.. 1174 3. TAXATION—LISTING OF PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED FROM TAX ROLL. — Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, relating to the manner of listing property erroneously left off the tax roll, held not repealed by Acts 1919, P . 348, creating boards of equalization in all counties. • 4. TAXATION—AcTION TO RECOVER PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.—In a suit to collect taxes on privately owned personal property located within a military reservation and erroneously omitted from the tax . roll and valued by the assessor under Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, the taxpayer, having failed to pursue the statutory remedy, held not entitled to complain of overvalUation. 5.' T A XATION—STATE P ROPERTY.—Where surplus personal property' within the Camp Pike Military Reservation was sold by the United States to an honorary commission appointed by the Governor for the benefit of the Arkansas National Guard, and where such commission appointed a particular trading . company to sell the property, under contract entitling it t6 one-half of the profits as compenSation for its services, and for advancement of the purchase price, held that the property so sold was not taxable as property of the trading company. Appeal from pulaski Chancery Court ; John E. Mai-- tinedu, Chancellor ; reversed in part. . STATEMENT BY THE COURT. ThiS suit was brought by the sheriff and collector of Pulaski County, Arkansas, against the Surplus Trading Company to recover certaiii taxes for the years 1922 and 1923, which the complaint alleges were due by it upon personal property situated in Pulaski County, Arkansas, which it had failed to assess for the years 1922 and 1923, and which the assessor had assessed as property erroneously left off the tax-rolls and to which he had attached the statutory penalty. The facts necOssary to determine the issues raised by *the appeal may be briefly stated as follow§ : The Surplus Trading Company is a partnership composed of various firms, corporations and individuals. It was organized for the purpose of dealing- in military supplies 'of varions kinds owned by the United States and left Over after . the World War. On April 21., 1922, the Surplus Trading Company paid the United States
ARK.] HAYNIE v. SURPIX T S TRADING Co. 509 the sum of $138,492.65 for 87,143 blankets situated on the . Camp Pike Military Reservation in Pulaski .County, Arkansas. It subsequently sold these blankets for a profit to various firms in the State of Arkansas and in -other states. It failed to assess its property for taxation for the years 1922 and 1923, and the assessor of Pulaski County duly assessed the property of said •firm at an amount which he had been informed was the value of the property owned by said firm . and situated in Pulaski County during the time for assessing said property in said years. The Governor of the State of Arkan-sas appointed an honorary commission to handle and sell property belonging to the "United States situated in said Camp Pike Military Reservation. This property was sold at a reduced price by the United States to. said honorary .cOmmission for the benefit of the Arkansas National Guard. The honorary commission ,employed the Surplus 'Trading Company to handle and sell said property for it. The Surplus Trading . Company, as part of the consideration for its employment, agreed to advance the purchase price of said personal_ property upon the , condition that it should be repaid from the sales of. said property. Such other facts will be stated or referred to in the opinion as may be necessary for a determination of the issues raised by the appeal. . . The chancellor, found the issues in . , favor of.. the defendant, and it was decreed that the complaint should be dismissed for want of equity. The case. is here on appeal. H. W. Applegate, Attorney General, and Sam T. & Tom Poe, for appellant. Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for •appellee. HART, C. J., (after stating 'the facts). The Camp Pike Military Reservation lies within the boundaries of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the principal question presented for .decision by this appeal relates to the power•of ffie State and its subordinate tax-
510 HAYNIE 4). Sulti'LlIs TRADING Co. [174 ing Agencies to levy and collect taxes pursuant to the State laws upon personal property situated within said military reservation. Counsel for appellee seek to uphold the decree of the chancellor denying the right of the State and its subordinate agencies to levy and collect such taxes upon the authority of Concessions Co. v. Morris Pac. (Wash.), 186 655. In that case it was held that the Camp Lewis Military Reservation, which was donated by Pierce County to the United States by consent of the State Legislature,* excepting only the right to serve criminal * and civil proCess therein, from the exclusive control of Congress, is without the State in both a jurisdictional and territorial sense, and personal property located thereon is not taxable under the State laws.. We do not agree with the reasoning of the court in that ease, and are of the opinion that it is contrary to the -trend of the decision of the United States Snpreme Court bearing on the question as well as to the weight of authority in the State courts. The true rule governing cases of this sort is stated by the :Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Nikis v. Virginia, 131 E. 236, 46 A. h R. 219. In that case the court held to be subject to a State license tax a mercantile business carried on in a railroad station situated on land ceded to the Federal Government for an approach to an interstate bridge. , It was there recognized that the State could not tax land 'or buildings situated thereon which had been ceded by the State to the United States, but it was expressly held that personal property situated in buildings upon said land owned by*third parties was liable to be taxed by the State and county in which it should be found. In discussing the question the court said : "That the right of a State to tax the property of others located upon lands owned by the United States, although it cannot tax such lands, will not be held to be abandoned by the State except for the most compelling reasons, is quite manifest from several decisions of the R unreme CoUrt of the United States."
ARK.] HAYNIE v. ' SURPLUS TRADING CO: 511 In that case The General Assembly of.Virginia,'ceded the land to the United , States for . abutments and approaches of a proposed . bridge : across the -POtomac River.. ' The . State retained concurrent jurisdiction.'with the United ' States over 'such :lands for the- executiont'of legal Process . and the disCharge'of such other legal , func-lions within the same as,may not bedncompatible with the consent given in the act. The act also provides- that.the land acquired and theY abutments and apptoaches of 'the bridge should be exempt,from taxation:by, the ,State .and county, in which they were situated. The * Camp Pike Military Reservation was acquired by the United .States under the proviSions- of an act of the Legislature of 1903. Acts of 1903, page 346. Section 1 of the act provides that the State . of Arkansas consents to the purchase to b.e made by the United States of any site or ground for the erection of any armory or arsenal; etc., and that the juriSdiction *of . the State within: and over ' ' all ground§ 'thus purChased : by the Unite'd' KtateS is Ceded to. the United States. The Section provides that the grant of jurisdiction shall not preveht execUtion Of any-ProCess of the State, civil or : Criminal, upon anYperL son who may be upon 'said . premises. :Se'ction 2 provideS that the State 'releases , her , 'right to tax , ahy such: site,, grounds or real estate and all improvements which ,may be thereon and: thereafter erected thereon,' during the time the United , States shall::be and' remain , the owner thereof: Thus it will be seen that, by the terms of the act itself, it was' not intended , by' the State to part with juriSdiction for the Purpose 'of liSting -personal -property of third persons in ,the reservation for 'assessment and .taxation: The grant by the-State expressly cedeS its- right to tax the land and-buildings granted to the-United , States; and this of itself indicates, an intention , to :reserve , jurisdiction' for taxation over' the . property third' persons located on such reservatiOn. United-States accepted the grant upOn the. terms indicated and; by its aCceptance; acknöwledged-that there was . no . oecasion , for the.State
512 HAYNIE V. SURPLUS TRADING Co. [174 to cede exclusive jurisdiction to the United States or to exempt from State taxation the Property of third persons situated upon the reservation, which was not used by the United States as a public agency or instrumentality Tor carrying out the purpose of the grant. In Noble v. Antoretti, 11 Wyo. 230, 71 P. 879, it was held that State taxation of the stock of goods of a licensed Indian trader located upon an Indian Reservation is not a tax upon an agency of the general Govemment and is not a burden upon commerce with an Indian tribe. It was further held that personal property, including the stock of goods of a licensed Indian trader, located within the limits of the Shoshone Indian Reservation, and employed in the business of such trader, is subject to taxation under the laws of the State in the same manner and to the same extent as all other like property V within the county. In Oscar. Daniels Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 175 N. W. 160, 208 Mich. 363, the Supreme Court of Michigan held that a statute of that State ceding all right and title of the State of Michigan to a canal and public works thereon to the .United States, and retaining jurisdiction for the service of civil and criminal process, cedes less than exclusive jurisdiction, and the ceded territory is not out of the State, in so far as taxation of private property is concerned. We think this holding is in accord with our own decisions and the trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States bearing on the question. In Ex parte Gaines, 56 Ark. 227, 19 S. W. 602, it was held that the estate of the lessee of land belonging to the United States situated on the' Hot Springs Reservation was not exempt from taxation. The court said that the interest of the lessee in the land was not the property of the United States and was not a means employed by Government to obtain a governmental end. It is true that, in that case, the decision was also based upon an act of Congress giving the consent of the United- States to the taxation of personal property under the laws of the
ARE.] HAYNIE liDEDS- -TRADING. CO. '513 .State of::Arkansas on the flot Springs, ReserVation.; ,It will be. .noted, however, :that .the trend of reasoning in that. case is: in. accord with. the reasoning in the. Virginia and Wyoming cases • above _cited. , •, • . In CasSels v. Wilder, 23 How. .61; it was held that property .on a United States inilitary. reservation is sulo ject to taxation by a- Territory...In Thomasv Gay,:1.69 264,18 S. Ct. 340, 42 L.;ed. 740, it was held that an acA of the. Legislature of Oklahoma Territory providing for the, taxation of personal property, of persons -other than Indians was ,a legitimate exercise of the Territory's power of taxation, .and, when enforced .in the taxation of cattle belonging to persons not resident in the Territory, grazing upon Indian reservations therein, does • not yi p late.the Constitution of the United States. In Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U. 'S. 588, 18 S. Ct. • 730, 42 L. -Ed: 1154, in Foster v.. Pryor, 189 U. S. : 324:23 :S.:Ct. 549, 47 L. Ed. 835, and. in Catholic 'Missions v, Missoula. County, 200 U. S: 118, , 26 ,S. Ct. 197,- .L. Ed. .398, • this • decision • Was apprOved and followed.. To the -same effect, .see Rice V. Hammond, 19 Okla. 419; 14 Ann.. Cas. : 963, 91, P. 698.; County ! of Cherry v. Thacher, 32 Nell 350, 49.N.- W. 351., and. Cosier v. McMillan, .22 Montana, 484; 56 Pac.. 965. The doctrine of these .cases sustainS, we -think, the authority of Pulaski :County to tax the personal property ,of..third persons : situated on the Camp Pike Military Reservation,.where the property is not Used as a govern-. mental agency, and where it would be otherwise subject to taxation under the laws of the-State. • . It is •also claimed by counsel for appellee that the tax, cannot be collected because the assessment waS not in the manner :provided :by law. It is. Urged that the assessment Was . not made by: the assessor :with.-the • assistance of, the township board in accOrdance With the provisions of act 147 of the •Acts of 1919 , providing for the taxation and valuation *of taxable property, in the State as construed in. Hutton vr . , King, 134 Ark. 463, :205 S:.W. :206.. The aet has. been incorporated: in1Crawford & Moses Digest, commencing with 9887. , Section 9910-'61
514 HAYNIE V. SURPLUS "TRADING Co. [174 Crawford & Moses' Digest, Which is § 16 of said act 147, provides for the manner of listing property erroneonsly left off the tax-roll. The property in quesiion was not assessed by the Surplus Trading Company for the year 192 and was left off the tax roll. Subsequently the tax assessor was notified of the omission to list the property by the clerk, and placed a value of $100,000 on the personal property of the Surplus Trading Company, and designated the same as delinquent. Under the provisions 'of the section of the* statute last above referred : to it was the duty of the assessor to place a value upon preperty which, for any reason, had . been omitted from the tax-roll, and the township board had no duty to perform in the matter. Again, it is insisted that said act 147 was repealed by act 477 passed by the Legislatnre of 1919. This act contains twelve sections, and it is only 'necessary to say that it had nothing ' whatever to do with the original or primary assessment of property. The only power given is with reference to the equalization of the valuation of all property which has been properly assessed. Again, it is contended by counsel for appellee that there was an overvaluation placed upon the property of the Surplus Trading Company for the Year 1922. The record shows that, on April 21, 1.922, the Surplus Trading Company purChased from the United States 87,143 blankets situated on the ' Camp Pike Military Reservation in Pulaski County, Arkansas, and paid therefor the sum. of $138,492.65. These blankets were sold afterwards by the Surplus Trading Company to various Persons at a profit. It was the duty of the Surplus Trading Company to assess its Property situated in Pulaski County, Arkan-sas. Beal-Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. Beller, 105 Ark.. 370, 150 S. W. 1033. Not having done so, it became the duty of the assessor to assess the property Under the provisions provided for the manner of listing property erroneously left off the taX-roll. The valuation placed upon the property by the assessor was $100,000. If the' Surplus Trading Company thought that the ass.essor had . placed
HAYNIE V. SURPLUS TRADING CO. . 515 an excessive .. valuation upon the property, when ,compared with the value placed upon similar property, it should have pursued the remedy provided for its relief 'under the statute. Having failed to pursue this remedy, the courts cannot give any relief. Clay County . v. Vank of Knobel, 105 Ark. 450, 151 S. W. 1013, and cases cited. In State v..Little, 94 • Ark. 21.7,126 S. W. 713, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 721 we quoted with approval froth well-known authorities on taxation the following: " The courts, either of comMon law or. equity,.are 'powerless to give relief against the erroneous judgments of assessing bodies, except as they be especially empowered by law to do so." It was there said that the text quoted is . a rule of general application. Under the principles of law above decided, .we are of the opinion that the assessment of 1922 must. stand, and that the sheriff had a right to institute an action for the collection of the 'assessment and penalty. • The case with reference to the . assessment for 1923 stands on a ' different footing. The testimony-in the case with reference • to the ownership of the property is very voluminous, but we are of the opinion that the record • plainly shows that the United States sold all the rest of the property belonging to it, .situated on the Camp Pike Military Reservation, to an honorary commission appointed by the Governor of the State of Arkansas for the benefit of the Arkansas National Guard, and that said honorary commission appointed the Surplus Trading Company as its agent to sell said property.. The title to the property was in said honorary commission, and the Surplus Trading Company was to advance the money • necessary for the payment • of the purchase price to the United States. After the . Surplus Trading Company had -been reimbursed for the purchase money advanced by it, it was to receive half of the profits for selling the property and for advancing the purchase price. This is the effect of our deCisiounpon the same state of facts in Adkins v. Kalter, 171 Ark. 1111, 287 S. W. 388. The assessMent was made by . the asSessor in 1923 on certain moneys
516 . HAYNIE V. .SURPLUS TRADING CO. [174 deposited in various banks in the city of Little_Rock to the . credit of said honorary commission: The assessment was made -by the assessor upon the- theory that • part of the Money belonged to the Surplus Trading Company and it had failed to assess the same as required by law... Under the facts stated, as we iennstrue them, this .money-- deposited in the various banks in Little Rock to the credit of the honorary cOnunission did not belong to the Surplus Trading 'Company at the time the assessment was made. It belonged to the honorary -commissinn, as trustee for the benefit of- tbe Arkansas National G-Uard, -and was, on that account, the property of the State. It is true that the Surplus. Tfading Company had earned a portion of it by its services in the matter, as 'above stated, but it did not actually have any right to the money until Ale hen-orary , commission settled with it 'and paid it for its serv, iceS. Until that was done, the case would stand like that of any other agent who had performed services for his principal and had collected money for him, -but had not yet been paid for his services. 'Under this state of the record we have the case of an illegal assessment. and not one of exCessive valuation or an erroneous - assessment. The • assessment being absolutely void, the assessor . -had no - right to make it. As we . have already seen,..the suit was brought by the collector to recover taxes from the Sur-• plus Trading Company, and it was proper for the chan-, cellor to grant all relief, legal or equitable, to which the partieS in the • lawsuit were entitled: Fuleher v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.,164 Ark. 261, 261 S. W. 645. The result of our views is that the chancellor •should have held the-assessment for the year 19 . 2 t 3 o be illegal-and void, and properly restrained the sheriff from collecting any amount of taxes from the Surplus Trading' Company. under it. The chancery court, however, erred in holding that the sheriff and collector was not, entitled to- recover the taxes for _the year 1922 and the penalties provided by the statute, as indicated in the opinion. Therefore the decree will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded with- the directions to allow -the sheriff
and collector to recover against the Surplus Trading Company the amount of taxes and penalties for the year 1922. It is so ordered:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.