130 Ind. 522 | Ind. | 1892
This is a proceeding to compel the appellant, the auditor of Hamilton county, to enter the property of certain persons residing without the limits of the city of No-blesville, but who had been transferred to the city of Nobles-ville for school purposes, on the tax duplicate of said city of Noblesville for taxation for school purposes, and to extend taxes and polls chargeable against such persons at the rate fixed for taxation for the city of Noblesville for school purposes, and the court rendered judgment against the appellant requiring him to make such entries.
The question presented arises on the ruling of the court in overruling appellant’s demurrer to the alternate writ of mandate, which ruling is assigned as error.
Counsel for appellant says: “ The question, here presented, and the solution thereof, depend upon the construction of section 4468, R. S. 1881.” This section reads as follows: “ 4468. Assessment and collection. The county auditor shall, upon the property and polls liable to taxation for State and county purposes, make the proper assessment of special school tax levied by the trustee, in the same manner as for State
Counsel contends that this section makes a distinction between persons owning property within the township, town or city to which they are transferred for school purposes, and persons residing without the township, town or city, and not ■owning property situate within the township, town or city to which they are attached for school purposes; that the auditor is required to extend the assessment to the taxable property,and place the same on the duplicate of the township, town or city to which the person is transferred, as to the property-owner in such township; while as to persons residing without, and owning no property in the township, town or city to which they are transferred, the auditor would have to extend the assessment, and place it upon the duplicate of the township, town or city in which the persons reside. The court in this case finds that the auditor was about to extend the taxes
We can not concur with this view of counsel in his construction of section 4468, supra. We think this section of the statute contemplated that a person who is transferred from one township, town or city to another for school purposes shall pay taxes upon all of the property situate in the township, town or city to which he is transferred, as well as that situate in the township, town or city in which he resides, and poll of the person so transferred, at the rate assessed by the township, town or city to which he is transferred ; and it is the duty of the county auditor to extend the taxes against such property at such rate. While the section designates the two classes of property separately, it fixes the rate upon all at the rate fixed for the corporation to which he is transferred. When the transfer is made for school purposes, it carries with it the property of the persons situate in the township, town or city in which the person resides for taxation; in other words, such of his property as is so situate in the township in which he resides is transferred with the person to the school township, town or city to which he is attached for taxation for school purposes, and makes it. assessable as other property is assessable in such township, town or city, and it should be entered upon the duplicate, and such tax for school purposes extended against it, at the same rate and in the same manner as the property of other persons residing within the corporate limits of such township, town or city. The tax belongs to such township, and it is proper that the property should be entered on the duplicate of the township for such purpose. The conclusion which we have reached is in accordance with the views of the school officers of the State. In note 7 to section
The conclusion we have reached leads to an affirmance of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.