Wiley v. Commissioners of Salisbury

Burwell, J.: The Constitution (Article VII, § 9) provides that all taxes levied by any county, city, town or township shall be uniform and ad valorem upon all property in the same *400 and (Article V, § 3) that laws shall be passed taxing by a uniform rule all moneys, credits, investment in bonds, stocks,, joint stock companies or otherwise, and also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money. These provisions of the organic law have been often construed by this Court, and from the decisions the following-principle -of taxation in this State may be considered as now firmly established : 1. “It is the provision, and was the purpose of the Constitution, that thereafter there should be no discrimination in taxation in favor of any class, person or interest, but that everything real and personal, possessing value as property and the subject of ownership, shall be taxed equally, and by a uniform rule. In this respect the present Constitution shows no favor and allows no discretion.” Kyle v. Commissioners,. 75 N. C., 445. 2. That all levies of taxes, whether by the State or by a county, city, town or township, must be laid by one uniform rule, to-wit, the rule established by the legislative department of the State government in its revenue acts. Kyle’s case» supra; Redmond v. Commissioners, 106 N. C., 122. The Legislature, acting under these mandates of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, has established a system of taxation embraced in what are known as the “ Revenue-Act” and the“ Machinery Act,” and has determined where and by whom all the property, real and personal, within the State, shall be listed or returned, and how and by whom its taxable-value shall be ascertained; and it has been held that the rules and regulations so fixed for theguidanceof theofficers charged with the listing and assessment of property for purposes of' State taxation, govern and control the action of county and other municipal officers charged with the listing and assessment of property for municipal taxation. Railroad v. Wilmington, 72 N, C., 73; Kyle’s case, supra; Cobb v. Elizabeth City, 75 N. C., 1; Covington v. Rockingham, 93 N. C., 134. *401 It seeing to follow, from the cases above cited, that if the-Legislature has established a “uniform rule” for the listing and assessment for taxation of stock in domestic manufacturing corp 'rations, the tax of which the plaintiff complains is invalid if the Board of Commissioners of the town of Salisbury violated that “ uniform rule ” when they assessed that tax against the plaintiff and require 1 him to pay it. The inquiry, then, is— Has the Legislature established a uniform rule for the listing and assessment for taxation of stock in domestic manufacturing corporations? And this inquiry seems especially pertinent in this case,, for the charter of the defendant provides (Private Laws 1885, eh. 84, sec. 14) that the Board of Commissioners of said town shall have power to levy taxes on real and personal property, moneys, bonds, stocks and other subjects “ which may be liable to taxation according to the Constitution and the Laws.” And section 18 of said charter is as follows : “ The real and personal property assessed for town taxation shall be according to the valuation for State taxes; and the Clerk of the Board of Commissioners for said town, or other suitable person, shall advertise and take the list of taxables in the town at the time and in the manner prescribed by law for the collection of State taxes.” It seems, therefore, that the Legislature, not content with-the general law governing the action of municipal officers in matters of taxation, as above stated, emphatically declared in the charter of this town that its Board of Commissioners should list the taxables at the time and in the manner prescribed by law for State taxes. In section three of the act to raise revenue, l-atified March 2, 1891, it is enacted that “there shall be levied and collected annually an ad valorem tax of twenty-five cents on every one hundred dollars value of real and personal property in this State, and moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint-stock *402 companies, or otherwise, required to be tinted in “ An Act to provide for the assessment of property and collection of taxes.” From this provision it appears that the plaintiff’s stock was not to be taxed unless the last named act (commonly called the Machinery Act) required it to be listed. We turn, therefore, to this last named act (Laws 1891, ch. 326) to ascertain if it is “required to be listed,” and we find in section fifteen the provisions: “ Persons owning shares in incorporated companies, taxable by law, are not required to deliver to the list-taker a list thereof, but the president or other chief officer shall deliver to the list-taker a list of all the shares of stock held therein and the value thereof, except banks. The tax assessed on shares of stock embraced in said list shall be paid by the corporation respectively.” “ All personal property, except such shares of capital stock and other property as are directed to be listed otherwise in this act, shall be listed in the township in which the person so charged resides on the first day of June. The residence of a corporation, partnership or joint-stock association, for the purposes of this act, shall be deemed to be in the township in which itsprin-oipalloffice or place of business is situated.” And section forty-one of the act is as follows : “Bridge, express,ferry, gas, manufacturing, mining, savings bank, stage, steamboat, street railroad, transportation and all other companies and associations incorporated under the laws of this State, except insurance companies, shall, in addition to the other property required by this act to be listed, make out and deliver to the assessor a sworn statement of the amount of its capital stock, setting forth particularly— “ 1. The name of the location of company or association. “ 2. The amount of capital stock authorized and the number of shares into which such capital stock is divided. “ 3. The amount of capital stock paid up. “ 4. The market value, or if no market value, then the actual value of the shares of stock. *403 “5. The assessed valuation of all its real and personal .property (which real and personal property shall be listed and valued as other real and personal property is listed and assessed under this chapter). “ The aggregate amount of the fifth item shall be deducted from the aggregate value of its shares of stock as provided by the fourth item, and the remainder, if any, shall be listed by the list-taker in the name of such company or corporation as capital stock thereof.” Thus it is seen that the Legislature has established a “ uniform rule ” for the taxation of the property of all such manufacturing corporations as the Salisbury Cotton Mills, and under that rule the plaintiff was not required to list his stock in that corporation for State taxation ; and because, as we have seen, this uniform rule binds the municipal officers or list-takers also,.the plaintiff was not required to list it for taxation with them, and since this stock of the plaintiff was not required to be listed for town taxation, it cannot be taxed by the municipality. But it may be said this stock is personal property; being such, it follows the person ; it is therefore property within the town and must be taxed. Redmond’s case, supra. The reply to this argument is that while it is true that such personal property, for general purposes, follows the person of the owner, the Legislature has power to fix the situs of all such taxables, and it has, in effect, by the enactments heretofore quoted, fixed the situs of stock in domestic, manufacturing and other named corporations at “ the residence ” of such corporation, which is defined to be where its principal office or other place of business is. The plaintiff’s certificates of stock are merely evidences of his “ right to a certain proportion of the capital stock ” of the corporation, and for purposes of revenue the situs of that stock could be put by the Legislature at the principal place of the business of the com *404 pany. Redmond v. Commissioners, 106 N. C., 122; Buie v. Commissioners, 79 N. C., 267. We therefore conclude that the Legislature has adopted a uniform rule for the taxation of the shares of stock, such as the plaintiff's in the Salisbury Cotton Mills, and that under that rule the plaintiff was not required to list such stock either for State, county or town purposes. We conclude, therefore, that the method for taxing domestic corporations prescribed in the Act of 1891, which is the same as the Act of 1887, is valid ; and that by it the plaintiff was not required to list his stock in the Salisbury Cotton Mills for town taxation, and that upon the facts agreed upon his Honor should have given judgment in his favor. Error.