Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

interest, in due accountability for, and expenditure of the tax. When this object is effected, the purpose of the law is answered. It is only necessary that it should be in double the amount of the tax on the tax bill delivered to the collector. That is the case here. Part of the taxes may have been worked out. If otherwise, the law is directory." Downer v. Woodbury 1 was an action of trespass against the collector, who, in his plea, alleged that he had given bond, but did not describe or make profert of it. On the trial it was proved that the defendant had acted as collector, and the court presumed that he had given bond as required by law.

Again, in Hale v. Cushing,2 which was an action of entry sur disseisin, the tenant claimed under a tax deed made by a collector of the direct tax, levied under the act of Congress, and it did not appear that the collector had given bond. Sale held valid. By the court: "The bond was intended for the security of the United States; but as regards the purchaser under a sale by the collector, and the original owner of the land sold, it is a subject of no importance." The statute of Ohio provided, that before receiving the tax duplicate, the collector should give bond, &c., and if he failed to do so before the first Monday in August, a collector should be appointed by the county commissioners; and the law further provided, if he neglected to file such bond within the time prescribed, the clerk of the Common Pleas Court was directed to withhold the duplicate, which constituted the authority of the collector.

In Sheldon v. Coates, which involved the validity of a tax sale, it appeared that the collector did not file his bond until September 10, 1805, that the duplicate was delivered to him on the twentieth of the same month, and that no new appointment of a collector had been made by the county commissioners. Upon this point the sale was sustained. By the court: "In this case, as the bond was executed before any appoint

1 19 Vermont, 329.

2 2 Greenleaf, 218.

8 10 Ohio, 278.

ment had been made of a collector, by the county commissioners, although not within the time prescribed, it would be against the whole current of the decisions of this court, in similar cases,1 to hold that the acts of the collector were void or voidable upon that ground."

15 Ohio, 136; 10 Ohio, 51.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE LISTING AND VALUATION OF THE LAND.

A LISTING and valuation of the land for taxation, within the time, and in the manner required by law, is essential to the validity of a tax title. This is a prerequisite which cannot, under any circumstances whatever, be dispensed with. In a double sense, it is an indispensable prerequisite; first, to satisfy the plain and unequivocal demands of the statute; and second, to give life and energy to the statute itself. It is the basis upon which all the subsequent proceedings rest. All of our constitutions require, either in express terms, or by necessary implication, that taxes shall be uniform and equal in their operation; in other words, that each and every citizen shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his estate. A periodical listing and valuation of all the property within the jurisdiction of the taxing power, is therefore absolutely necessary, in order to carry into practical effect this constitutional requirement. To hold otherwise, would be to pronounce the revenue laws unconstitutional and void, and deprive the citizen of all manner of protection against unjust and oppressive taxation. The listing and valuation of the property usually precedes the levy of the tax; indeed, this is universally true whenever the tax is levied by a county, town, or municipal corporation acting under the authority of the legislature. The taxes necessary for the support of the State government are fixed by public law; but inferior jurisdictions are limited in their power of taxation. The pur pose for which the tax is raised is specified in the law, and the maximum rate of the levy is established, beyond which they cannot go. The practical operation of each levy, and the abso

lute necessity of a list and valuation, may be thus illustrated. Suppose that by the lists returned from each county, it appears that the aggregate valuation of all the land in the State is one hundred million of dollars. The legislature direct the assessment of five mills, for State purposes, upon each dollar's worth of property embraced in the list. The assessor performs the. ministerial duty of charging the tax thus levied upon each parcel of land in the list, according to its appraised value. Upon this valuation, the produce of the State tax would be five hundred thousand dollars. Again, a county is authorized to levy a tax, to meet its current expenses, not exceeding the rate of five mills to the dollar. The list of that county shows an aggregate valuation of one million of dollars. The produce of such tax, taking the maximum rate, would be five thousand dollars. In each case the citizen is bound to contribute according to the valuation of his estate. One is the owner of property to the amount of ten thousand dollars, while another owns but one thousand dollars' worth. The former will be charged one hundred dollars for State and county taxes, and the latter but ten; and the sum thus chargeable to each is set opposite to the description of his estate in the list.

It will thus be seen, that the listing and valuation of the land is the basis of the assessment of the tax, and that each citizen is directly interested in the list. By it alone can the legality of the tax be tested; this is his only security against an unequal

tax.

Again, in most of the States, a duplicate of this list is delivered to the collector, and this constitutes his authority to demand the tax, distrain the goods, and sell the land of the delinquent. Besides, the collector is charged with the tax according to the list, and the list is the basis of his settlement with the State and county. Thus the listing and valuation constitute the security of the citizen, the foundation of the assessment, and all the subsequent proceedings, the authority of the officer to collect the tax, and the basis upon which the settlements of the collecting officers are made.1

1 Graves v. Bruen, 11 Illinois, 431; Tibbetts v. Job, 11 Illinois, 453; Schuyler

The ordinary signification of the term list, is a roll or catalogue. In its technical sense, it means a complete enumeration of the owners of property in a collection district, together with a description and valuation of their property, made periodically, with a view to equality and uniformity in the levy of taxes. It is variously called tax list, rate bill, assessment roll, according to the laws and usages of the respective States.

In Homer v. Cilley,' a novel state of facts existed, to which this definition was applied. The New Hampshire statute required the collector, on or before a particular day, to make out and deliver to the deputy Secretary of State, a copy of his tax list; the deputy was required to retain the list, and receive taxes for a limited time, and it was then to be returned to the collector. Until this was done, the collector possessed no power to advertise and sell the land. The supposed list embraced a single parcel of land, in an unincorporated place, called "Dame's Gore," the owner of which was a non-resident of the State, the only character of delinquents to whom the aboverecited statute applied. It was insisted that the list ought to be produced to show the authority of the collector to sell the land; but it was contended by the counsel who maintained the validity of the sale, that inasmuch as the tax was against a single parcel of land, and not against divers persons and tracts, the collector had no list, and therefore no copy could be pro-duced. But the court replied: "The signification thus given to the term list of taxes,' is quite too confined. Although the term list' ordinarily signifies a roll or catalogue, yet a roll does not always contain a number of names, or several particulars. There can be no doubt that this collector was as much bound to return a copy of the non-resident taxes, where there

[ocr errors]

6

v. Hull, 11 Illinois, 462; Job v. Tibbetts, 5 Gilman, 376; Nalle v. Fenwick, 4 Randolph, 591; Kinney v. Beverley, 2 Hening & Munford, 318; Lessce of Holt's Heirs v. Hemphill's Heirs, 3 Hammond, 232; s. c. 1-4 Ohio Cond. 551; Lessee of Dresback v. McArthur, 6 & 7 Ohio, 307; Thurston v. Little, 3 Massachusetts, 429; Games v. Stiles, 14 Peters, 322; Adam v. Litchfield, 10 Connecticut, 127; Whittelsey v. Clinton, 14 Connecticut, 72.

1 14 New Hampshire, 85.

« ZurückWeiter »