This is a combined action to determine the validity of the county assessor’s classification of certain lаnds in Meade County as nonagricultural. The taxpayers applied for abatements which the Meade County Commissioners denied. Appeal was taken to the circuit court in and for Meade County where the cases were combined for trial. The trial court held that the land was used exclusively for agricultural use and the abatements were granted. From these decisions the county has appealed, and the cases were again combined by stipulation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The respondents Veith, a retired Air Forсe officer and his wife, purchased two tracts in a development platted as Piedmont Meadows Ranchettes, which tracts comprised approximately thirty-one acres. They constructed a home on a portion of the property, consisting of two or three acres, fenced that portion off and leased the remainder out for grazing, until they purchased their own cattle.
The respondents Haas, likеwise a retired Air Force officer and his wife, also purchased two tracts in the Piedmont Meadows Ranсhettes adjacent to the Veith land. They also constructed a home on a portion of their property, the balance being fenced off and leased along with the Veith land. Veith and Haas combined in thе cattle operation as partners with Veith apparently having the chief responsibility as full-time oрerator because Haas, who was a physician, went into practice in Rapid City. When they went into thе cattle partnership they leased additional land, making a total grazing unit of approximately 145 acres.
The trial court entered findings of fact in each case which, in essence, found that the respeсtive taxpayers had purchased the tracts solely for agricultural use and they had invested in equipment аnd livestock for use for agricultural purposes; that they were acting in good faith and were sincere in their desire to engage in agricultural pursuit; and in conjunction with each other had operated a sizeable cattle operation. Based on these findings the court concluded, as a matter of law, that the land was used exclusively for agricultural purposes and that the taxpayers were entitled to an abatement to conform with the agricultural use of said land.
Appellant county assigns as error the court’s findings of fаct alleging that they are not supported by the evidence or contrary thereto. In his brief and on orаl argument counsel for the taxpayers challenged the right of the appellant county to question the findings as appellant neither proposed or requested any findings in conformity with the provisions of SDCL 15-6-52(a). This cоurt has repeatedly held that where the sufficiency of the evidence was not questioned before the trial court by motion for a new trial, request for findings or other appropriate procedure sufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed and appellant is therefore limited to the question of whether the findings support the conclusions of law and judgment. See
Ove v. Hutcheson
(1957)
Since 1931 South Dakota has employed a preferential assessment scheme for valuation of farm land used for agricultural pur
*426
poses whiсh disregards the value for nonag-ricultural use or speculative value. Under the statute in effect at the timе of the assessments in question agricultural property included all property used exclusively for agriculturаl purposes which is not handled for resale by wholesale or retail dealers, and including both tilled and untilled lаnds, the buildings, structures and other improvements on such land and the livestock and machinery located and used оn such land. The constitutionality of this scheme was approved by this court in
Great Northern Railway Company v. Whitfield
(1937)
The criteria set out in the statute givеs the assessor the broad discretionary powers in designating which class the property falls in. 1 The key phrаse appears to be “used exclusively for agricultural purposes.” The phrase “exclusively used” has reference to primary and inherent use as over against a mere secondary and incidental use. 2
This court has repeatedly held that the rule that laws exempting property from taxation should be strictly construed in favor of the taxing power does not call for strained construction, but must always be reasonable and will not be applied to defeat the expressed intent of the legislature.
3
In
C. A. Wagner Construction Company v. City of Sioux Falls
(1947)
The trial court having found that the respective taxpayers had purchased the tracts solely for agricultural use and invested in equipment and livestock for use for agricultural purрoses, and had in good faith and sincerity engaged in agricultural pursuits including operation of a sizeable сattle operation, such findings support the conclusion and the judgment that the taxpayers are entitled to an abatement.
Notes
. SDCL 10-6-31.
.
St. Louis Gospel Center v. Prose
(Mo. 1955)
.State ex
rel.
Eveland
v.
Erickson
(1921)