-380 — BRADFORD V. BURROW. [188 BRADFORD V. BURROW. 4-3244 • Opinion delivered December 11, 1933. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSTRUCTION OF sirxru'rEs.--Statutes should be so construed as to render them constitutional if reasonably susceptible of such construction. 2. TAXATION-REDEMPTION FROM TAX SALE-COUNTY WARRANTS.-0II redemption of land sold to the State for taxes, the county treas-. urer is required to accept county warrants for the portion of the taxes owing to the county. Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court ; Neil Killough, judge; affirmed. - Lamb Adams, for appellant. Maddox <6 Greer and J. Brinkerhoff, for appellee. SMITH, J. The only question involved gn this appeal is whether, in the redemption of lands sold to the State for taxes, the county warrants of the county in which the land is located must be received by the county treasurer for the amount of taxes owing to the county. The circuit court held, under a petition for mandamus to require the acceptance of the tender of such warrants, that they must be accepted for- that purpose, and the county treasurer has appealed from that judgment. Section . 10,100, Crawford & Moses' Digest, provides the "mode of redemption" of land sold to an individual for the no -np ayment of taxes, and reads as follows: "Any owner, or his agent, or any other person for the owner deSiring to redeem any land, town or city lot or part thereof sold for taxes, under or by virtue of any law of this State, may, within the time limited by law for such redemption, deposit with the county treasurer, upon the certificate of the clerk of the county court describing such land, town or city lot, an amount of money equal
A RK.] BRADFOR,D V. BURROW. 381 to the taxeS for Which such land, or town or city lot was sold, together with penalty and cost and the taxes subsequently paid thereon by such person,' or those claiming under him, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum on the whole amount so paid, and the county treasurer shall, upon the payment of said sum, within • ten days thereafter notify the purchaser that said sum is in the treasury and subject to his order.'' This section is a re-enactment of § 5775, Mansfield's Digest, with the added requirement that the county treasurer shall, within ten days after. receiving the. redemption money, notify the tax purchaser that said sum is in the treasury subject to his order. This court, in the case of Murphy v. Smith, 49 -Ark. 37, 3 S. W. 891, construed § 5775, Mansfield's Digest; as requiring that the entire amount necessary to effect a redemption from a tax sale to an individual must be paid in the coin or treasury notes of the United States made .legal tender by acts of Congress, that is, the. whole amount muSt be. paid . in MOney, and no part ihereof may be paid in county warrants. Section 10,101, CraWford & Moses' Digest, defines the dutY of the county treastrer, and § 10,102, .Crawford & Moses! Digest, defines the duty of the county. clerk, in perfecting the redemption.. . .Section 10,104, CrawfOrd & Moses' Digest, has reference to the redemption of land sold to the State, and reads as follows : "Lands sold . to the State may be redeemed within two years after sale, subject to the same restrictions, conditions and -regulations as hereinbefore described in relation to the redemption of lands sold for taxes, by the application to the clerk of the confity court, and payment of the same -amount and penalty herein-before mentiened, and the taxes which would have accrued thereon if such land or lot bad been continued on the tax books and the taxes extended to the colinfy treasurer, and the. amount due the State shall' be paid-by the county treasurer to the county collectori-ilcilio shall give duplicate receipts therefor, stating , in said receipts the amount 'belonging to each fund, separately, one 'of which shall be 'immediately •forwarded by the
382 BRADFPRD V. BURROW. [188_ treasurer to the auditor, and the other to .the clerk of the • county court, who shall make quarterly reports to the Auditor of the amounts due the. State on account of such redemption of any land sold to the State as herein provided. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the county court to make a note thereof on the reCord book of such sale provided for in this act." The insistence, for the reversal df the jUdgment of the court below, is that the statute providing for the redemption of lands sold to individuals having been construed as requiring payment in money, the statute providing for ihe redemptiOn of lands sold to the ,State should receive the same construction, and the same requirement be imposed, and that redeMptions are authorized in the 'latter case- only upon the paYment in money of the whole amonnt required to redeem, including the portion to which the county is entitled. We do . not so construe § 10,104, CraWford & Moses' Digest. We think its purpose is 'to prescribe a similar procedure to be followed by the landowner in either case. Section 10,104 does not expressly require payment in money, as does § 10;100 in case of sales to individnals. If ihe statute were so construed, grave doubt would arise as to its constitutionality, for § 10 of article 16. of the Constitution provides that : ' The taxes of counties, town§ and cities shall only : be payable in lawful currency of the United States, or the orders o± warrants of said counties, towns and cities, respectively." That statutes should.be so construed as-to render them constitutional if ihey are reasonably susceptible of such Construction is a settled rule of interpretation. Stillwell v. Jackson, 77 Ark. 250, 93.S. W.-71 ; Dobbs v. Holland, 146 Ark. 398, 215 S. W. 742; Booe v. Sims, 139 Ark: 595,: 215 S. W. 649; Commis: sioners, etc., V. Quapaw Club, 145 Ark: 283, 225 S. W. 886; Logan v. State, 150 Ark. 486, 234 S. W. 493; Board of Commissioners v. FurloW, 165 Ark. 63, 262 S. W. 991 ; Hazelrigy v. Board of Penitentiary Commissioners, 184 Ark. 154, 40 S. W. (2d) 998. Section 10,104, Crawford & Moses' Digest,, will be better understood if it is read in connection with other
AR K . ] BRADFORD v. BURROW. 383 statutes on the . subject 'of payment of . county taxes. Among these. are the following: • * Seetion 1988, CraWford & Moses' DigeSt; provides that : "The county taxes of any county of this State, levied in PurSuance of law, shall- only be payable in the lawful currency .of the United' States or scrip or warrants of the 'county by whose authority the same were issued, draWn in pursuance of laW-. and not -inconsistent With thiS act. ."*" "' Section 1993, Crawford & Moses' Digest, provides that : "All cminty Warrants ao county scrip shall be receivable for any taxes for county purposes, except for interest on the public debt and for sinking fund, and for all debts due the county 'by Whose authority the same were issued; ' without regard to the tinie or date Of issuance of such warrant, scrifl, acceptance or . . money, or the purpose fOr . which, they were issned; and* it is hereby Made the duty of,. and• authority, is hereby con-. ferred upon, theeounty court of the respective counties, or the judge thereof in vacation,. to *make all laWfUl orders compelling collectors, both county and municipal, to comply with the provisions and intent of this act. Provided, that nothing in this act shall authorize the collector to receivd scrip issued since the adoptiOn*Of the Constitution in paYment of the tax levied to pay thejn-debtedness existing before the adoption of the Conefi-tution." ... Section . 2008, Crawford & ,Moses' Digest, provides that: "All warrants drawn on the treasury shall "be. received, irrespective of their number and date, in payment of all taxes„duties, fines, penalties and forfeitures accruing to the comity." Section 10,045, CraWford.& Moses' -Digest, provides that : "The' collector shall receive* county warrants in payment of county taxes ; *.. Provided, this section shall not be so constrded as to compelthe aceefAance-of any* order or warrant that by the laws Of this State was required -te be Sunded." This section of the Digest has been amended-by 9 of act 275 of- the Ads of 1933, page 843, but in a respect here unimportant to be considered.
384 BRADFORD v. BURROW': [188 . These sections of the statutes, or similar statutes which they have amended, have been construed in the following cases :. Daniel v. Askew, 36 Ark. 487; Whit-thorne V. Jeti, 39 Ark. 139; Worthen v. Roots,. 34 Ark. 356 ; Murphy v. Smith, 49 . Ark. 37, 3 S. W. 891 ; Frazer, 50 Ark. 393, 8 .S. W. 143'; Crudup v. Ramsey, 54 Ark. 168, 15 S. W. 458; Hill v. Logan County, 57 Ark. 400, 21 S. W. 1063-; St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Marion County, 72 Ark. 27, 79 S. W. 791 ; Bartlett v. Willis, 147 Ark. 374, 227 S. W. 596; Stanfield v. Kincannon, 185 Ark. 125, 46 S. W. (2d) 22 ; Stanfield v. Friddle, , 185 Ark. 879, 50 S. W . (2d) 237. There. are other . eases to 'the same effect. The purport of . all these decisions is that a county may not refuse to receive its warrants in payment of •any demand due it. The subject was very thoroughly considered in the case of Stillwell v. Jackson, 77 Ark. 250, 93 S. W. 71. The facts in that case .were that the county court of Ashley County made an order 'for the constrtiction of a new courthouse, in which it was . provided that "a special levy of two mills tax on the dollar be and the same is hereby . levied on all the taxable 'property of Ashley County to build a new courthouse, and that said tax be receivable only in currency or proper warrants drawn by. proper order on the courthonse fund." The question was raised whether the courthouse tax could be. paid in warrants drawn upon funds appropriated for ordinary. county purposes. There was a review of- various sections of the Constitution in regard- to the assessment and payMent •axes, .and also of statutes upon that subject.. After-this review the court declared the law to -be that "all county warrants shall be receivable for ail -county taxes, except those levied to pay indebtedness existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and interest thereon." The. -court there quoted from the - case of Worthen v. Roots, 34 Ark. 366, as follows : "A review of all this legislation anterior and subsequent to the Constitution of 1874, together with that Constitution itself, reveals a settled policy, almost in terms enjoined by the Constitution itself, * * * of supporting the credit of the bounties, and encouraging the citizens to render their services with
ARK.] BRADFORD V. BURROW. 385 alacrity, by making claims against the county a set44 for taxes." ' . • the' éase of Goulcl v:DaVis, 133 Ark. 90, 202 S. W. 37, there was 6U-1S-trued a' special- aet providing for the funding of the indebtedness of Garland County, , § 4 of this act provides that : "No county warrants hereafter issued by said county shall be receivable for taxes, nor in payment of any fines, penalty or forfeiture, but shall be payable only in the current money of the 'United States." It was held that this section of the act was violative of § 10, article 16: Of the' ConStitUtion, herein-above quoted from, and that the. act was, void on that account. • The effect of the numerous cases whieh have eon-stilled the various statutes ,relating, . to county- reVenues appear, to clearly declare the policy . and: effect of the warrants in satisfaction of any claim due it: „ The caSe of MUrPhy v ' ,Sf m . ith, .49 Ark. 37, 3 S.. W. 891, supra, is, not contrary to this view. There the land had been sold to an individual; and the county's demand for the taxes had been paid by , the 'sale. Thereafter- the landowner owed the county nothing on account of the taxes for the nonp4yinerit of whieh the land had been sold. They had been paid. The demand was due to the tax purchaser, who was under no duty, statutory or otherwise, to receive anything except lawful money; indeed, § 10,100; Crawford & Moses' Digest, recognizes this right of the purchaser and .gives.its sanction to be paid in money. When the sale is tO the State, it is for the benefit of all the taiing agencieS dntitled to PokiOns of the , taxes, and the re'demption is also fOr their , benefit. It is, at last and in effect, a 'delayed payment of the taxes, which the law has permitted to , be made, and the county then has no more right. to , refuse to i accept its warrants in payment of its taxes,than it originally lw,d. It was still a demand due the county.which the Constitution and the statutes _of the State, provide may he paid in the warrants of the county. , . There is involved in this case no construction of Amendment to the' 'Constitution. - NO: IT authorizing •
• the levy and collectiOn of a construction and building tax for purposes authorized by that amendment. The writ . of mandamus was therefore properly awarded, and the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
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.