908 BENSBERG v. PARKER. [192 BENSBERG V. PARKER. 4-4342 Opinion delivered June 29, 1936. 1. TAXATION—EXEMPTIONS. — Section 5, art. 16, of the Constitution, providing that "the following property shall be exempt from taxation: Public property used exclusively for public purposes; churches used as such, etc.," held to refer alone to taxes for general purposes of revenue, and not to special taxes or assessments for local improvements; hence lands in a paving district held by a church are subject to improvement taxes although exempt from ordinary taxes for the general purposes of government. 2. TAXATION—ASSESSMEN T S FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS.—Assessments in local improvement districts are based on the benefits to the lands; and on no other theory can assessments be collected. Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court, Second Division; George M. LeCroy, Chancellor; affirmed. Ed F. Saxon, H. G. Wade, Leibert W. Bower and G. R. Haynie, for appellants. Thomas Gaughan, for appellees.
ARK.] BENSBERG V. PARKER. 909' MEHAFFY, J. This action was instituted in the chancery court of . Ouachita:county by the appellees against. the appellants .and others to subject certain lots and parcels of land situated in Camden Paving District No. 3 to . .the. payment: of pertain delinquent street improvement taxes levied and assessed against all property lo-, cated within the district. •• • • The appellants, G. J. Bensberg, W. E:Tryor, and Leonard Powell are trustees of. the First Presbyterian Church, owners of property described as church prop,: erty in the complaint. The trustees of the First Presby-terian. Church, filed .answer admitting that they owned the property and held title to .it for the use and . benefit of the• members of the First, Presbyterian Church of Camden. They denied that the commissioners of the improvement district had any power or authority to include the church property, and denied that .there was any power or authority of law to assess any benefits upon or against said property, and denied that there was any . authority of . law, to assess or . extend any imprOvement taxes,:,as. set forth in the comOaint. .The commissioners of the improvement district filed deniurrer to answer of, the trustees of . the church. The court sustained the demurrer . and entered a decree that the plaintiff . should have and recover of and from . the property of. the defendants • described in the complaint, the sum of $620 with interest and attorneys' fees, and all costs, and declared said judgment a lien on the property belonging to, the church. . An appeal is prosecuted to this court to reverse : the decree of the chancery court. • Our Constitution proVides "Provided,, further; that the following property shall be exempt from •taxation; Public property used exclusively for public purpoSes ; churches used as .such; cemeterieS used exclusively as such; school buildings and hPparatus ; libraries • and grounds used exclusively for school purposes ; and : buildings and grounds And materials uSed exclusively for public charity..". Const., art. 16, § 5.. .. • The established rule .151 that the constitutional ex, emption refefs alone . to taxes for general purpoes of
910 BENSBERG. V. PARKER.i [192 revenue, and :has_ ho reference :to. speCial taxes- or assessMents for. loCal improvements.. • ..Bod,i-d: of; Improvemopit School District, 56' Ark.• 354,• .19•S. .W. 969.. ". It is i the : WelLestablished rule that -a constitutional: or, statutory,. eXemption! from taxatioh is' to, be, •taken an exemption Troth' ordinary-taxes, for I the .general pur,: poses of government—State, couhty; --or does not' relieve. those in whose favor .:siteh.exeniption exiSts from the obligatiOn . to •pay : special aSsesSMents for local . iMprovements • Which . are eharged upon .. própertY ont the 'theorY that; 'such .propert5r iS Specially 'benefited. thereby. '.' ,25 R.. C. §:40,, .page:124; SlOan : on .Iniprove, 'tient-Districts,. vol. 1 ., 5. -.' .; .A'sseSshaeritSi' iraftrOVenient ' -diStrictst 'are baSed on ' the • benefitS"tO' the land.""The land niiist "be benefited' 'to . the . eXterit' Of' the aiseSsinent:' 'On no ther theory can assessments . 'be . Collected.. . • ' •..' • • 'ApPellafitS' Coneede-, that'j the cohstitutiOnal exertip-lion' 'dOeS: nee' eXeroPt -fronr:'Spedial provethent diStrictS,' Mit thoy '6Ontend'jkat the ifivtop--:' ment district has no right to Coned' s iinleSS the statute' speq.ally' authorizes the levy .and • assessment, and they citand• relY oh the' Wateribork§ IMP : .-Dist.' NO..2 v.' LO'-' gar,' 0 Olinty , , 155' Ark: 257, 244-g.. W.: . 4.... • tha pse..tho.. cbto e vtis speaking' Of . 6.,SSeSsMentS against: ptiblic prop.: ertobiltt houses 'and . jairs—and , 'nOt . priVateiprOPerty. • Appellants alsO 'Cite 'the. ..case 'of Bogrd 'of Iotprove meit. 'Sclibot 'District,' 56' 'Ark. 354, 19 S W. 969: ' that case the court said : • • "Seine thirigS 'are' 'aiwaYs preSumptiVely .exempted' from the • oPeration'Of general. tax laws, because it is reasoriable tO"SUPPOS6' they Were not Within theintent• of the Legislature in adopting them. Such . is 'the. case with property belonging to the' ; State . and its muniCiPalities and which is held . by them . for. goy-. ernmental ,Purp6ses.. All such property is faxable, , if. the State shall.. See fit :to: tax: . it ;. but to. , levy 'a tax; hpon' it wohld render necessary hew :taxes . tO 'Meet :the demand. of, this . taX,. 'and thus the public . wir ould be • taxing itself in order to raise money -Le . pay' Over to itself, 'and no. *one would be 'benefited Mit the: offieers:eniploYed whose compensation !would go . to increase :the useless levy. It cam . •
'ARK :BENSBERG, 221. ,PARKER. ! 911 not:be suPposed`, , that! the !Legislature would ever pur-'posely lay :such; a,burderrupon'publie property, and it is therefore a ;reasonable conclusion , that,. however .general :may be the enumeration of 'property for ;taxation,: the property held by the State and by all its municipalities for governmental purposes,was intended, to.be eXcluded, : and the law will be administered aS eXcluding it in fact.'.' • Property as describe& above'is field : br the State .dr municipalities for governmental purposes. It is supported by taxation. This is not true with reference to church property. It is privately owned, and, while ex-enipt from general taxes, 'it iS 'ridt 'eXeropt f'ront sPeCial assessments. The assessments can only be collected on the theory that the benefit to the land is equal to or greater than the assdSSMent:' -. Whatever division , of l authority there may be on this *questiOn, we think itis . 'definitely 'Settled 'by' the' opinion in the case ,of Ahern v B:ktrd , Of:Imp Di:30kt, No: 3 of :Texarkana,' W' here , ,the ,court "said . :. . The :defendants contend that, in order to ascertainthe majority. in..value . of- the property in the: district; all the. assessable:property slionid ` haVe' been' inclUded; and' that' all . ''of 'said property was not incIfidedfor inStans ee, the r6al: prop-.,erty..Ok churches, whiCh they show''W:haye fieen of the value. of $2,8Q0, ,Church, property. is, , exeMpt from:general taxation, and therefore does not .appear , as valued on the county assessor's list. By a deeided weight of authOrity,'hoWeVer; although exempt frona"genetartaxes, .ch ' ur h c proper y i s 1i'a eorf oea1 unlproyemen a t' s " se ss- ments.: .The contention of ,the defendants . .is therefore •: sustained, and in such ',case: extraneous nproof is 'properly made." 'Ahern v. , Board Ilinpi,dvement Dist: NO: 3 of Texa . rOna,` . 69. Ark. 68; 61 S; W. 575: In the case of Martin, v. ,Rer,oVs, 125 Ark 163, 188 ,,s. :W. 4; this: court held. that an .act passed by theLegis-lature: eXempting 'church property :in. cities and towns ' Was void because it' did not exempt i .ural church 'prop-Of courSe, if apPellahtS' Contention' is'edirect, all the ,church property, bOth in Cities and toWns and the country, was exempt, and the:court would have so held; but the Legislature-passed the law asSuming that , it was
912 [192 all subject to assessment, and exempted certain portions. The court. said : " Thus there •was an'unjust and unequal discrimination between lands of the same class. In this respect the act is •n arbitrary and manifest abuse of power." We think this case is controlled by Ahern v. Board of Improvement Dist..No 3 Of Texark6na, supra, and the decree of the chancery court 'is, therefore,. 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.