77 W. Va. 207 | W. Va. | 1915
The appellant, Ohio Fuel Oil Company, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of this state, by its bill complains that its property located in Roane county was twice assessed for taxation and taxed in that county, once by the board of public works, once by the county authorities. Price, sheriff, the county court, the board of equalization and review of that county and the individual members of such board were'made defendants to the bill. It prayed and was awarded an injunction inhibiting defendant Price from selling such property levied on to enforce payment of the taxes alleged to have been illegally charged to plaintiff upon the valuation thereof unlawfully fixed by the board of equalization and review as amended by the county court. On final hearing on pleadings and proof, the injunction awarded was dissolved and the bill dismissed; and plaintiff brings the ease here for review on appeal.
The company now owns and operates, and from 1910 to 1913 did own and operate, oil and gas properties in Lincoln, Roane and other counties in this state. While the property located in Lincoln then was and presumably still is operated for the production of gas, that in Roane is devoted to the production of oil for the private use and benefit of appellant. The gas produced from the Lincoln property appellant furnishes and sells at a profit to consumers applying therefor, subject to such rules and regulations as the operator from time to time' may prescribe. As to the property devoted to public use, the Ohio Fuel Oil Company was, during the years mentioned, a public service corporation. It supplied gas as fuel for consumption by its patrons for heat and light. The service was general. Any one conveniently situated in respect to its property was entitled to receive and was furnished gas subject to such rules and regulations. Indeed, the charter of the company and nature of its business are conceded to be such as properly to characterize it as a corporation serving the
With knowledge of such assessment, taxation and distribution, so far as his county was interested, .the assessor of Roane county did not list or assess the property owned by the Ohio Fuel Company located in that county for taxation therein. However, the board of equalization and review corrected his-returns and entered such property, determined its value, and certified the result to the county court for the purpose of extending the levies fixed by such court. The assessment so-made and certified by the board of equalization and review the county court reduced, for the alleged purpose of securing uniformity in the assessment of like properties owned and operated by other corporations engaged in that county in producing oil for their individual benefit. Plaintiff having paid the taxes charged against it upon the assessment made by the board of public work for previous years, and the county of Roane and the several subdivisions thereof having received and appropriated to public uses their several distributive shares or proportions of the taxes so assessed and paid, including the year 1913, without complaint or objection therefrom or any attempt on their part to re-assess such property, the question demanding an answer on this appeal •is whether the board of public works, under whose control, for the purpose of taxation, chapter 29 of the Code places the , property of all public service corporations engaged in business in this state, or the assessing and taxing authorities of Roane county had the exclusive right and power, for the pur
That the properties owned and operated by the company in Lincoln and Roane counties were devoted to purposes wholly different, one public, the other private, that such properties were not in any manner connected or associated except by ownership and management, and that the annual returns therefrom were disproportionate, are facts conceded and admitted, if indeed such concession were at all material.
While neither the board of public works nor the state tax commissioner is a party to this proceeding, the respective rights and duties thereof, under statutory enactments pertaining to taxation, indirectly are the subject of investigation herein; for the solution of the questions raised depends upon the construction of such statutes. By that process alone can the matters in issue be resolved. If the legislature constituted the board of public works as the sole medium for the assessment of the properties of public service corporations engaged in the performance of public functions in this state, and empowered such boai’d to determine, within certain limitations and restrictions, what properties so owned and operated, in relation to their uses and locations, come within their jurisdiction, inferior assessing and taxing bodies must yield to the judgment of their superior and abide its determination upon the question of such jurisdiction.
That the legislature intended by such enactments to devise and establish a symmetrical and harmonious system of taxation, to the end that each kind of property shall bear no more than its equal and proportionate share of the governmental expenses, can not reasonably be doubted, whatever defects may unavoidably have escaped detection. As part of the system so devised, provision was made for a state tax commissioner, who was thereby charged with the duty of supervising the operation of the entire system, and, in an advisory capacity, to give aid and assistance to the board of public works. For these purposes, the is endowed with authority, .ample and sufficient, to effectuate his supervisory and advisory functions.
By section 84 of chapter 29, “the owner or operator of every pipe line * * * within this state, used for the
In the absence of any disclosure to the contrary, we must assume the return was satisfactory and contained all such items, and that the board performed the duties required of it by section 93 of the same chapter. That section requires the board, if satisfied with the return made, or if not satisfied therewith and it has otherwise procured satisfactory and sufficient information of the character, amount and location of the property of such owner or operator, to proceed not later than the first day of June of each year “to assess and fix the true and actual value of all property of such owner or operator hereinbefore required to be returned, so far as the said board has been able to ascertain the same, in each county through which * * * the pipe line of any such owner or operator runs, and in which any property to be assessed is. The section does not restrict that body to the return made by the owner or operator. It may institute an independent investigation as to the correctness of its return, take and consider testimony, and prosecute such inquiry as it may deem necessary for the purpose of bringing under its control any property of the owner or operator, whatever its character or location, if within the meaning and purpose of other sections "cited. And when so found and its value assessed, the assessment and valuation “shall be final and conclusive”, unless appealed from as provided by the section, and certified to the auditor and by him to the county court of each county in which any of the property lies.
This conclusion is further re-enforced by the provisions of section 106, saying “all buildings and real estate owned or held by such owner or operator, and used or occupied for any purpose immediately connected with the property (returned and assessed), shall be included in such assessment by the board of public works; but all real estate owned or held by any such owner or operator, and not used or occupied for purposes immediately connected with the property, shall be assessed as otherwise provided in this chapter ’ ’. This section, it will be noted, relates to real and not personal estate. It virtually excludes the personal property of the owner or operator. Though declaring what the county authorities may do as regards real estate, it is silent as to their right to assess the personal property of a public service corporation whose property is returned for assessment by the owner or operator to and assessed by the board of public works. The statutory authority to deal with certain specific property by taxing bodies for the purposes of taxation or otherwise, generally excludes authority to deal with that .not specified, agreeably to the rule of construction, general in its application, that “where a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate it is to be construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned”, subject to certain well defined limitations not applicable here. 36 Cyc. 1122.
Whether appellant owned any real estate in Roane county is a question not answered by the record. If it did, such property was assessable in that county, because not connected with the Lincoln county property owned and operated therein by
But it is contended that, because section 77 of chapter 29 requires all corporations doing business in this state, except (among others) pipe line companies, to report their property to the assessor for assessment, it was the duty of the assessor of Roane county to list, assess and value the property of the Ohio Fuel Oil Company located in that county. The premises do not warrant that conclusion. It is a non sequitur. And counsel err in saying the words “pipe line” were not intended to and do not define or include pipe line companies. The exception embraces “railroad, foreign insurance and express companies, telephone companies, pipe line and car line companies”, all the descriptive words referring to the companies required to report their properties to the board of public works for assessment and valuation.
Has equity jurisdiction to enjoin collection of the.taxes erroneously charged against the personal property of appellant upon the assessment and valuation ascertained and fixed by the board of equalization and review as modified by the county .court of Roane county? That inquiry defendants would have us answer in the negative, upon the authority of Williams v. County Court, 26 W. Va. 488. That case, however, involved, not, as in this case, taxes illegally assessed against one tax-payer, but taxes assessed against all the taxpayers of the county for county purposes; and the decision in the main was predicated upon the theory that where all the tax-payers are equally affected by the illegal taxation, and none of them suffers any injury peculiar to himself, public policy prevents resort to the injunctive process. But the decision goes further, and holds that where the tax is imposed not on all but a part of the tax-payers, and affects only those who join in the suit, or who sue for and on behalf of them: selves and others similarly situated or affected, equity will grant relief by enjoining taxation averred and proved to be illegal. Nor do we perceive in ivhat respect Wingrove v. Public Service Commission, 74 W. Va. 190, militates against the views herein expressed. The sole question there involved was whether the White Oak Fuel Company, a corporation engaged in the mining and marketing of coal and using
The further proposition argued for defendants, that, as ■section 63 requires the assessment of all personal property not •exempt from taxation, in the county wherein it is located, the taxable personal property of appellant located in Roane •county ought to have been assessed in that eounty, is untenable. ■ That conclusion can not be accepted; because, if sound, much property clearly and indisputably assessable by the board of public works could not be assessed by it. It would withdraw from such control all the personal property of public service corporations located in the different local tax assessment jurisdictions. That result, if allowed, would destroy the whole tax system devised by the legislature. That position is apparently untenable and indefensible.
Though cited by defendants, Railroad Co. v. Morris, decided October 19, 1915, does not sustain a conclusion adverse or hostile to that reached in this case. Rather it confirms our conclusion.
From what has been said, it is apparent that the decree appealed from is erroneous and must be reversed, the injunction reinstated and perpetuated; and such will be the order entered here.
Reversed. Injunction perpetuated.