50 S.C. 374 | S.C. | 1897
The opinion of the Court was delivered hy
The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the respondents, in their respective official capacities, by which each of them should be commanded to receive and accept, as the return of the petitioner for taxation, the assessment made by the State board of assessors of 3.25 miles of main line of the Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company, within the limits of the city of Columbia, at $13,000 per mile, and the same assessment of one mile, main line of the Columbia Railroad Company, within the city limits, at $10,000 per mile, aggregating $53,250 — in lieu of the assessment of said property as made by the city assessment; 3.25 miles of Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad at $13,000 per mile; one mile of main line of Columbia and Greenville Railroad at $13,000 per mile, and twelve miles of side tracks within said city at $8,000 per mile — aggregating $157,250.
Judge Ernest Gary, as presiding Judge, denied the writ to petitioner, and an appeal was taken from said order on ■ eight grounds. We do not deem it necessary to set out the proceedings with greater detail, nor the grounds of appeal in the terms thereof, as we hope to be able to pass upon the merits of each in our treatment of the contention. It may be remarked just here that no other questions are presented by this appeal than such as affect the right of the city of Columbia to assess property of the petitioner for taxation, independently of the assessment made by the State board of assessors. Our inquiries would naturally be directed: First. To the power and extent thereof of the .State board of assessors. Second. What power of assessment for taxation of railroad property has been vested in the city of Columbia by the General Assembly?
Now it is apparent from these sections that everything of value belonging to a railroad is included in ascertaining its value, and that this value is apportioned to each mile of the main track of the railroad. Hence when a mile of the main track is taxed, such tax includes the value not only of the mile of main track, but also all other taxable property of such road, according to the plan adopted in sec. 236. This plan of assessment is fair and just. But we are bound to admit that from a scrutiny of sections we have mentioned— 216 to 316 — it appears that the assessment here provided has reference only to that for the levy of State and county taxes; or, to be more exact, the taxes to be collected by the treasurers of the respective counties of the State. There is nothing herein contained which makes the assessment herein provided for applicable to cities, towns or villages authorized by law to assess property within said cities, towns or villages for local taxation. It is true, in State ex rel. Ross v. Kelly, 45 S. C., 457, this Court held that the city auditor of the city of Charleston was compelled to make the assessment of taxable property in that city from the assessment of such property for taxation as made by the auditor of Charleston County for State and county taxes, hut that result was reached, and so announced in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Gary, because, although the
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
For the reasons indicated in my separate opinion in the case of Ross v. Kelly, 45 S. C., at page 463, and repeated in an opinion (not yet filed) in the very recent case of Germania Savings Bank v. Town of Darlington, I cannot concur in the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Pope in this case. On the contrary, I am entirely satisfied that under the provisions of the, Constitution of 1868, by which this case must be tested, there can be but one lawful assessment of property for taxation, whether for State, county or municipal purposes, and that assessment must, necessarily, conform to the assessment made by the proper officers for State and county taxation.