ARK.] EVANS V. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC. 571 EVANS v. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC.
4-4268 Opinion delivered April 13, 1936. TAXATION—ASSESSMENT.—The statute (§ 9901, Crawford & Moses' Dig.) prescribing the manner in which assessment lists shall be prepared and sworn to applies to assessment of personal property only; so failure to file such assessment list does not render invalid an assessment of taxes against lands. 2. TAXATION.—Where the opening recitals of the minutes of the levying court are that the purpose for which the levying court met was for levying of taxes for the year 1930, the year for which the levy was made, it sufficiently designates the year, and it is not necessary to be repeated with respect to each item of levy made. • 3. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.—SinCe a levy of taxes for salary of teachers is for maintenance of schools, a levy of 18 mills under the head "Rate in Mills" for "teachers" is not invalid because the broader term "maintenance of schools," as prescribed in the statute, was not used. 4. TAXATION.—Since no particular form of order making assessment is essential, failure to use dollar marks, or ditto marks does not render the assessment invalid where there can be no doubt as to the amount of the levy and the purpose for which it was intended. 5. TAXATION—RECORD.—Failure of the county judge to sign the record could not affect the validity of the levy. 6. TAxArIoN.—Where the list of ,, delinquent lands as published ,showed the name of the supposed owner of each tract, its description, , and the total amount of tax, , penalty and costs chargea against it, it is a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law: Crawford & Moses° Dig., § 10,084. 7. TAXATION.—That publication notice of sale of delinquent land referred to "taxes and penalties charged," whereas the certificate showed that the lands were sold .for "taxes, penalty and costs," does not* render the sale invalid ; nor does the inclu Qinn in A P ì - tax deed of several tracts for which a gross sum was paid•rerider' deed invalid. Appeal from Union . Chancery Court, Second sion ; George M . ., . LeCroy, Chancellor ; reversed. Claude E. Love, for appellant. N. A. Cox, for appellee. BUTLER, J. Appellee was the owner of the record title of SW 1/4 of SW 1/4, section 5, township 17 south, range 14 west, in Union County, Arkansas. This land was sold for the taxes delinquent in 1930 to the appel-
572 EVANS V. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC. [192 lant, and the• two years for redemption having expired, a tax deed was issued to him. Appellee filed suit to cancel said deed and from a decree granting the prayer of his complaint.comes this appeal. • . The , sole question involved relates to the . validity of the sale for delinqUent taxes for the year aforesaid. 'In. the court below the appellee alleged eleven grounds as a basis for its Contention, and there and now has abandoned all of these save . siX of the same Which we will notice in the order presented.. 1. The first ground for the alleged invalidity of the sale rests on the contention that there was no • valid assessment of taxes against the land. , This contention is based on the proposition that .. the testimony affirina-tiVely shows that no 'aSSessment • list was prepared and sworn . to. as provided by . § 9901 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, and by § 9873 (a) . of Castle's 1931 Supplement to Crawford & Moses' Digest. These sections, together With § 9916, CaStle's Supp. (act 172, § 16 of the ACtS of 1929) providing for the . preServation of assessment lists made by the property-owner .relate to assessments of personal property and have no application to the assessments of real estate. -The asSessment of real estate is governed by § 2, act 172 of the . Acts of 1929 (Castle's Supplement 1931 to Crawford & Moses' Digest § 9917,C). It is accomplished by the assessor without the intervention of the property-owner . and the case .of American Trust Co. v. Nash:, 111 Ark. 97, 163 S. W. 178, cited bY aPpellee„involved only 'the assessment of personal property and has no application to the assessment of real estate. . . 2. The next attack on the validity of the . sale is on the ground that there was no valid levy for the taxes of 1930. There are fiye separate ,. objections urged as follows: . (a) The order levying school taxes does not levy for the year 1930. (b) It • shows a levy for "teachers" which is unauthorized by the Constitution as amended. (c) There are no dollar marks• or decimal points to 'show what Money, or if any money . was levied. , There are no ditto marks or other Signs to indicate that. the respective items are referred to .the headings
ARK.] EVANS V. .1 7. L. • DUMAS STORE, INC.. 57.3 above • (e) The- order' is:not signed by the jtidko ; there is no mark, certificate ..or other Indication tO identifY either this order; or the whole , thiriutes, as• being what it purports to ba. • ) - That Part of' ;the' 'order of the- levying 'court making the Specific tev3 f for distriet 'school takes does;not: spdcify for 'what year; the levy. -.was: made; but . ' this : was not:necessary for the reason tliat in. the :opening recital of . the minutes of the levying — court it is declared, iiiter alia, that the purpose for which the Jevying court met Was' for: levying "of, the tax'es : f or ! the year 1930." This sufficiently designates . the ye a fo r r . which the levy was-made -and is not necessary , to., be repeated with respect to 'each item of the' levy made. : (b) • 'Under this head is urged that the :levy of' 18 mills. for "teachers." under the . head,' "Rate iuMills," does not comply with the;;law . which authorizes !a levy . for ." maintenance ' of.. schools. , ". The • salary of 'teachers: manifestly is for the niairitenanee SchoOls, and the levy is not. invalict because..a. more general , and broader ; lerm; "maintenance of schools" was Mot used, 'although the-better, practicdwOuld'be.le follOW the language of the:law, for• otherwise ! the -expenditure of the tax levied might be restricted to • ' the , salaries 'of teachers only, a . pOint,r howeVer, : On which we . find .it unnece : ssary 'to expresS an' opinion. . . ! • : . . • ... • (c) and: (d): These, objections- relate to the failure - to use dollar 'marks,, ditto marks, etc. Without setting out that part ,of t the; order critiCized, we 'think • it ;sufficient to say that ._on . its exataination; -doubt arise As to what' rate, or fdr what •purpose, the' levy• was 'made.. No particular: form is . essential. and one , is 'sufficient, as in, this .case, 'Where there ;can be no . .doubt. as .to the' amount - of the Aevy and the purpese for which it was • intended'. (e)• : This paint ,Was; not raised by anY specifie. gation inthe complaint nor Is there` any indication: in the-recdrd to the effect that it. was ;pressed. to• the attention of: the, trial court. - Moreover, the; failure of .the 'County judge. To :sign the record, could not . affect the validity oT:, the'leviy, .a.nd . if required,' would. serve. lib. purpoSe .except: to , authenticate • said; recotd.,- In; support of the conten-
574 EVANS v. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC. [192 tion that- the signature of the judge is , a prerequisite to the validity of . the levy, the case of Board of Conference, etc. V. Phillips, 187 Ark. 1113, 63 S. W. (2d) 988, is cited by the appellee. This case does not, however, support that contention. It is true, the record there was signed not only by the county judge, but by the justices composing the levying court; but the questions involved in that case bear no relation to those arising in the instant case, and it was not there held that the signatures were required. In Shultz v. Carroll, 157 Ark. 208, 248 S. W. 261, cited by appellee, the record of the levying court, held to be ambiguous, is unlike the record in the case at bar. In that case the record failed to show that the figures under the head, "Amount taxes voted" 7, and under the heading, "For What Purpose" "5 gen. 2 bldg.," gave nothing to indicate what these fikures were intended to represent. Whereas, in the instant case there appears over the heading, " Teachers" "Bldg.," the heading, "Rate in Mills." This removes any ambiguity and distinguishes this case from the cited case. In Carter v. Wasson, 189 Ark. 942, 75 S. W. (2d) 819, cited and relied on by appellee, the comment bY the court relative to no "dittos" appearing opposite any of the lands listed was made in connection with a duplication of assessment by reason of which the tract of land sold at the tax sale for a substantial amount in excess of the taxes, penalty and costs due, and it was for this reason that the court in that case held the tax sale invalid. 3 and 4. These objections to the validity of the sale are that the clerk did not properly list the lands or properly extend the taxes against them, and that, as delivered to the tax collector, the tax books did not correctly show a valid extension of the taxes. Section 10,009, Crawford & Moses' Digest, provides that the clerk of the county court shall make out, in books prepared for that purpose in such manner as the auditor of State shall prescribe, a complete list of all the taxable property in his county and the value thereof ; and, with relation to real estate, provides that "each separate tract of real property in each congressional township in his county,
ARK.] EVANS v. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC. 575 other than town or city property, shall be contained in a line, or lines, opposite the names of owner or owners, arranged in numerical order." "Each separate lot or tract of real property in each city or town shall be set down in a line, or lines, opposite the names of the owner or owners, arranged in 'numerical order." . Section 10,010 is as follows: "The clerk of the county court shall, after receiving statements of the rates and sums of money to be levied for the current year from the auditor of State, and from such other officers and authorities as shall be legally empowered to determine the rates or amount of taxes•to be levied for the various purposes authorized by law, forthwith determine the sums to be levied upon .each tract or lot of real property in his county adding the taxes of any previous year or years that may have been omitted, and upon the amount of personal property, moneys and credits listed in his county in the name of each person, company or corporation, which shall be assessed equally on all real and personal property subject to•such taxes." The objection.to the listing of the lands and the extension of the taxes is that the land was described as SW SW and that there were no ditto marks, that the word "acres" was not placed after the figure "40," nor a dollar mark before the figure "140" under the column headed, "Valuation," etc. A photostatic copy of the record as prepared . and transmitted to the clerk, shows that the record was divided into columns, the first being the name of the owner; then a column for parts of sections; then columns headed "Section," "Township" and "Range" followed by others for area and valuation. The first tract described opposite the name of the owner is E1/2 NE, section 5, township 17, range 14, 80 acres: Following this description, without dittoing the section, township and range,. appear tho descriptions of other subdivisions comprising a section. Followin c, that, the first description appearing after the name oft b he owner is SE SE, section 6, township 17, range 14, and, as in section 5, there follows without ditto the remainder of the Subdivisions of that section. Then follow descriptions commencing with W 1 / 4 SE, section 7, tovi r nship 17, range
576 EVANS v. F. L. DUMAS STORE, Ixc. [192 14, and continuing' until the subdivisions . of-that section. are described. • FolioWing the land 'descriptions appear columns for road district, .school district, and rate' district school tax. The next column is headed "State Tim" Immediately below is the rate in mills and then follows the column for . County taX and. the rate in mills. .• Then follows 'a column for 'district 'School tax and on6 for total. State . • and county taxes. : -In eaeh Of these columns the proper extensions are made and ',we 'conclude • that the record is such that any person of aVerage information .and understanding could not be Mistaken as . to the tract of land assessed, its valuation, and the amotints . of tax asSessed 'for the seVeral purpOses' allowed by' law; We . are of 'the opinion that the record; as prepared by the clerk and. delivered' f to the : collector, is in' substantial compliance with- the- sectiOns of -the 'Digest last cited above and that the . case of Mixon v.. Bell, 190. Ark; 903; 82 S. W. (2d) 33; cited by the' appellee; is not atithority to the contrary. ..• -•-. 6. The validity of tbe sale is *next , qpestioned - on the ground. that the- clerk : failed to , advertise the : delinquent list in -the manner and form required : by law , and that the clerk's-certificate does not: 'show that the list was Published and . the lands sold in conformity • to:law: Much of the .argunient •under this' heading' is -in. line :with that dealing•with-the alleged f ailure to -list-and extend the taxes; noted under headings nuMbered. attention is called to the fact that 'the notiee 'actually pub lished. is not an 'exact -reproduction- of the :delinquent : liSt on 'file in the clerk?s office.' The law doe's . not :requir'e that this should be -so. -Section 10,082, Crawford -& Moses . ' Digest, provides': 'The collector shall, by the --second Monday in MaY each year file with the clerk . of the countST court . a ; list or :lists of • all sUch taxeS. levied on- Teal estate AS 'such collector has* been' unable to collect; • therein. describing the land' or city- or tOwn lots• on which 'said' delinquent taxes are charged as the Same • (are) described-. on the tax :books, and the collector. shall . attach 'thereto' his affidavit to . .the correctness of such list. The :clerk ! of the county -Court shall carefully.- 'Scrutinize . said -list • - and
ARK. ] EVANS V. F. L. DUMAS STORE, INC. 577 compare-the same with the tax-book and record of tax receipts,•and shall strike from said list any tract of land, city or town lot upon which the taxes shall have been paid, or which does not appear to have been entered upon the tax-book, or that -shall appear from the tax-book to be exempt from taxation." •It will be , observed that no particular form for the delinquent list is prescribed by this section and § 10,084, Crawford & Moses' Digest, providing for the publick tion of delinquent lists, is complied with where the description of land , is given with the name of its purported owner and the total amount stated for which said land is to be sold. The records on file in the clerk's office show. the separate amount of taxes, of penalty and of costs. These are open to the taxpayer in order that he may inform himself as to the correctness of the sum appearing in the notice of the intended sale for delinquent taxes, penalty and costs. The list involved in the case at bar, as published, showed the name' of the supposed owner of each tract, its description and the total amount of tax, penalty and cdsts charged against it, and is a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. • Objection is •thade to the heading of the publication notice in that it refers . to ." the taxes and penalties charged" without referring to costs, whereas the Certificate shows that the lands were sold for "the taxes, penalty and costs." The notice and certificate are substantial copies of the form- prescribed by § 10,085 of Crawford & Moses' Digest and of the recitals in the certificate mad'e by the clerk Of the sale prescribed by § -10;092, - --. - 7. It is next contended that the tax deed is void on its face because several tracts of land were included in the deed for which a gross amount was paid. This objection would be well taken under the rule ,announced Cocks et al.-v. Simmons, 55 Ark. 104,17 S. W. 594, and Campbell v. Sanders, 138. Ark. 94, .210 S. W. 934, but fo r the fact that this rule has been changed by statute now found as § 10,108, Castle's 1927 SUpplement to Craw-ford & Moses' Digest, .which permits one owning more than one certificate of Purchase; or having a certificate
578 [192 of purchase for more than one tract of land purchased at any one sale to have included in one deed any number of such tracts sold at the same sale. Appellant contends that appellee's cause of action is barred by the provisions of §- 10,119, Crawford & Moses' Digest. This question we need not decide for the reaSon that as we view the record, as presented and argued by counsel, we find the tax sale valid and that the deed to the appellant based thereon served to divest the title of the appellee. Accordingly the decree of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the complaint of a.ppellee for want of equity, and confirm title in appellant.
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.