G. Trоy Register and others, taxpayers of Lowndes County, brought an action against the *83 commissioners of roads and revenues, the members of the board of tax assessors, and the tax commissioner оf the county, contending that the tax assessments for the year 1969 are illegal, null, void, and unconstitutional; and seeking a declaration that the described policy and procedures emplоyed by the board of tax assessors are illegal and unconstitutional, and that the assessments for ad valorem taxation for the year 1969 on all property situated in Lowndes County are null and void. It was prayed that the members of the board of commissioners of roads and revenues be enjoined from levying any tax under the unlawful assessments; that the tax commissioner be enjoined from preparing any tax digest on the illegal assessments; and that the board of tax assessors and the commissioners of roads and revenues be enjoined from further prosecution of the appeаls from the award of arbitrators pending in the superior court.
After a hearing, the trial judge made findings of fact and law, denied the prayers for interlocutory injunction, and dismissed the complaint. The аppeal is from this order.
The trial judge found that the millage rate had not been set at the time of the filing of the action, or at the time of the hearing; that the plaintiffs are taxpayers owning property in Lowndes County; that no tender of taxes had been made by any of the plaintiffs; and that tender would not have been accepted by the tax commissioner, if it had been made. The judge cited decisions of this court, and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable relief because of the failure to make a tender of the 1969 taxes upon their property.
The ruling by the trial judge in regard to tender is authorized by several recent decisions of this court. However, we have made a thorough re-examination of these cases and have come to thе decision that they have misapplied the equitable principle which was announced in earlier cases, that one seeking relief from excessive tax levies must pay, or offer to pay, any taxes admitted to be due, in order to obtain equitable relief, under the equitable maxim that “he who would have equity must do equity.” See
Peoples Credit Clothing Co. v. City of Atlanta,
The principle stated in Peoples Credit Clothing Co. v. City *84 of Atlanta is a valid equitable principle. In a number of recent cases, however, this principle has been erroneously applied to actions seeking to declare tax assessments to be null and void, which were brought at a time when no taxes wеre due.
In
Derrick v. Campbell,
Beginning with
Walker v. Burns,
Code § 92-5601 provides: “If any tax collector shall collect or attempt to collect any taxes before the receiver has completed and transmitted his digest to the State Revenue Commissioner, unless specially so ordered by such officer or allowed by special enactment, he shall forfeit to the State double the amount so collected or attempted to be collected, such forfeiture to be collected by execution issued by the State Revenue Commissioner.” The tax commissioner at the hearing testifiеd that he had not *85 sent the 1969 tax digest to the State Revenue Commissioner, that no 1969 taxes were then due, and that he would not have accepted 1969 taxes, if tendered, because he was prеvented by law from doing so.
“Equity will not require a useless formality.”
Miller v. Watson,
The case of
Walker v. Burns,
It is contended by the appellants that the court erred in finding that the employment of professional appraisers and the use of the appraisals made by them did not constitute an unauthorized dеlegation of authority by the board of tax assessors.
Code § 92-6910, as amended by Ga. L. 1953, pp. 189, 190, authorizes the county board of tax assessors, subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners, to contract for the employment of persons to assist the board in the mapping, platting, cataloging, indexing, and appraising of taxable properties in the county, and to make re-evaluations of taxable property, subject to the approval of the board of tax assessors. Code Ann. § 92-6911 (Ga. L. 1937, pp. 517, 519) makes it the duty of the board of tax assessors to see that all taxable property within the county is assessed and returned at its just and fair valuation and that valuations between the individual taxpayers are fairly and justly equalized. Code § 92-6913, as amended, provides thаt the tax assessors may proceed to assess taxes “according to the best information obtainable.”
The evidence at the hearing authorized the finding that the board of tax assessоrs used the appraisal of the values of taxable property made by Carroll-Phelps Company, together with
*86
other facts, and their own personal knowledge and opinion gained frоm experience and observation in arriving at the final valuations to be used for the assessment of real property in Lowndes County for the year 1969. This was not an improper delegation оf their duties. Compare
Hutchins v. Candler,
It is contended that the court erred in finding that the board of tax assessors complied with the statutory requirement (Code Ann. § 92-6911) of giving notice within five days of any changes made in taxpayеrs’ returns. The evidence authorized a finding that the tax assessors made tentative changes in the tax returns during the period that they studied the returns, but that no final decision on changes was made until a datе within five days of which the notices of changes were mailed. This was a sufficient compliance with the statute.
It is enumerated as error that the court refused to enjoin the board of tax assessors “from applying different methods of valuation and assessment to real and personal property in Lowndes County, and from establishing valuations of property other than at fair market vаlue and by the best means available and by their own discretion and judgment, and from continuing any of the presently existing unlawful assessments.”
The chairman of the board of tax assessors testified that the tax assessors had formerly arrived at the valuation of household furniture at 10% of value of the real estate on which the household furniture was located, but that they had discontinued this-practice in 1969. When asked how the amount was determined in 1969, he replied: “We would just imagine about how much would be a reasonable figure.” It was stipulated between the parties that there were a minimum of 300 returns madе in 1969 which do not show the 10<% correlation between personal property and real property returns in the valuation. The chairman-testified that the board made no attempt to locate and assess household furniture belonging to- people who did not own real estate, because they did not consider it economically feasible.
The Constitution,
Art. VII, Sec. I,
Par. Ill
(Code Ann.
*87
§ 2-5403) provides: “All taxation shall be unifоrm upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” “Realty and tangible personal property are of the same class, and the constitutional rule of uniformity in taxation requires that both be taxed alike.”
Hutchins V. Howard,
The evidence demands a finding that personal property valuations were not based on fair market value, and that the valuations as between owners of real property and owners of personal property only were not fairly and justly equalized. It was therefore error to deny the interlocutory injunction and dismiss the action. See
Brooks v. Carter,
Judgment reversed.