Case ID: ala_149/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McCLELLAN, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pickler v. The State.
    
      Action by State for Sale of Lands for Taxes.
    
    (Decided Feb. 5th, 1906.
    42 So. Rep. 1018.)
    
      Taxation-; Assessment to two Parties; Payment t>y One; JUffeet.— Wbeil lands are assessed .to two different people for the same . year, and one of such persons pays' the taxes on such land for that year, the lien for taxes as to that land for that year is discharged, and no collection can' be had tinder the other' assessments: ' • '
    Appeal from D'eKalb Gircuit Court:
    Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson'.
    ■ Tlie taxes oh certain real' estate having been assessed against this appellant, and not having been paid, the judge of probate of DeKalb county entered • an- order for tbe'sale' of the lands'. Ah appeal from the order was taken to the' circuit court, and upon issue tendered by the state the defendant répliéd:’ 1st. No valid assessment. 2. -Want of notice; and, 3rd, that the lands upon Which it was alleged that taxes were due, were at the time' they were assessed to this defendant, in the adverse possession of' other named partiesy that they had assessed them for taxes and had paid the taxes on them, and that this fact was known to the assessor -and.collector, on could have been known by reasonable diligence'. Demurrers were interposed to these last pleas, and sustained. On the trial the defendant offered to prove' that eacdi parcel of land assessed to- him, and far which judgment was' sought for' taxes, was at the time of the assessment in the adverse' possession of other named - persons, who had given the' same in for assessment and had paid the taxes oh them. On motion of the state' this testimony was excluded. These, and other questions not necessary to be here set out were presented for review, upon the finding of the trial court that taxes were due by this appellant upon the lands described therein. The court below made its findings of fact without the intervention of the jury, and certain findings Avere presented also for revieAV, but as they are not mentioned in the opinion, they are not here set out.
    Lee, Lee & Lee, for appellant.
    Massey Wilson, Attorney General, for appellee.
   McCLELLAN, J. —

This appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court, to- which the matter had been removed by appellant under section 4069 of the Code of 1896. On proper request of the parties' there was a special finding of the facts by the trial judge. There are- many assignments of error, but the occasion requires the discussion of only one of them.

The appellant, on the trial belÓAV, offered testimony tending to show that the lands condemned to sale by the probate court decree had, prior tó the rendition of that decree, been assessed for taxation, for that ' tax'' year .(1904) by other persons, who were in possession thereof at the time .of assessment, and that the taxes'due under said assessments had been by such persons in possession fully paid. On objection by the. state, this proffered testimony was not admitted. The record shoAvs an assessment of the same lands to appellant for the tax year 1904. So the case is one where there were tAvo assessments of tbe. same lands, and payment of the taxes assessed against them Under one " of. the assessments. Where there are two assessments of the same lands by different persons for the same year, and payment of the taxes is made by one under his assessment, the lien for the taxes on that subject of taxation is wholly discharged, and no collection of the taxes under the other assessment can be made. The state is entitled to only one tax on one subject thereof, and the rule declared best gives effect to that truism. — Wilbert v. Michel, 42 La. Ann. 853, 8 South. 607; Desty on Tax. p. 812 et seq.; 2 Cooley on Taxation, p. 810, and note.

It follows,that the trial court erred in refusing to’admit- testimony tending to show assessment and páyment of the taxes by parties other than the appellant; and for this reason the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, O. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.