In 2 0 0 9 , leg isla tio n re o rg a n ize d th e S tate T a x C o m m iss io n a n d p la c e d its 1 admi ni s tr at i ve f

unct i ons i n a D epart m entof R evenue and i t s author i ty overadmi ni s tr at i ve appea l s i n an i ndepende ntB oar d of T ax A ppeal s , and made conf or m i ng amendm ent s and re p e a ls a s n e c e s s a ry to a c c o m p lis h th e s a m e . 

### 2009 Mis s. Laws492 § 115.

I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 5 9 9 - S CT W AL TER D . AK

I N S d / b / a AK I NSCONS T

RU CT ION C OM

P AN Y
v. M I S S I S S I PP I DEPAR TM

ENT OF REV

ENUE f / k / a M I S S I S S I P P I S T AT E T AX COM M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 09/ 2010 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N
. PA TR I CI A D
. W I SE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : H A R R IS H
. B A R N E S , III J AM ES GA RY M CG EE ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: J AM ES L. POW ELL KEN I TTA FRA NK LI N TO OLE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 22/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he M i ssi ssi pp i T ax C om m i ssi on (C om m i ssi on ) asses sed a con tract or’ s t ax ag ai nst 1 W al t erD
. A ki ns , d/b/ a A ki ns C on st ruct i on C om pany. A ki ns chal l enged the as s es s m ent admi ni s tr at i vel y. A f

t erexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , A ki ns app eal ed t o the C h a n c e ry C o u rt fo r th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty . T h e c h a n c e llo r d ism iss e d h isM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 27-77- 7 w as amended dur i ng the 2009 gene r al 2 s es s i on. 2009 M i s s . L aw s 492 § 115. A m ong othert hi ngs , the amendm entl engthens t he tim e to file a n a p p e a l fro m th irty (3 0 ) d a y s to six ty (6 0 ) d a y s, re d u c e s th e b o n d re q u ire d in l i eu of paymentf

r om doubl e t o one- hal f

the amounti n contr over s y, and gi ves the cha ncel l or th e a u th o rity to w a iv e th e b o n d in its e n tirety if th e c o u rt fin d s th e S tate ' s in ter e st is adequa t el y pr ot ect ed. T he amendm ent ' s ef f ect i ve dat e w as J ul y 1, 2010. T he amendm ent e x c lu d e d a ll p e n d in g tax cla im s; th u s, re n d e rin g the a m e n d m e n t in a p p lica b le to th is a p p e a l. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -77 -7 (R ev . 2 0 1 0 ). 

### Mis si ss ippiCode Se ction 27-65-21( 1)( a) (i ) r equire s “ eve ry pe rs on enga ging or 3 

### continuing in t

his st at e in thebusines s of contra cting or per for

ming a c ontrac t or e ngaging in any of the a ctivi ti es , or si mi lar a ctivi ti es , l is te d bel ow for a pric e, commis si on, f

eeor wag e, there is h erebylevied , assessed an d sh all be collecteda tax equal to three an d o ne-h alf perce nt ( 3- 1⁄2 %) of the t ota l c ontrac t pric e or com pens ation rec ei ved .
. . .” SeeMis s. Code Ann. § 27- 65-21( 1)( a) (i ) ( Rev. 2010). 2 compl ai ntf

orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 27- 77- 7 ( R ev. 2005) , w hi ch 2
r equi r es a t axpaye rs eeki ng j udi ci al r evi ew t o pay the amoun to rder ed bef or e f i l i ng t he p e tit io n o r a ttac h a s e c u rity b o n d , fo r d o u b le th e a m o u n t in c o n tro v e rsy , w ith th e p e tit io n to app eal
. A kins appeals t o thi s C ou rt , argui ng that he w as depri ved of his r i gh tt o d ue p rocess beca us e the appe al pr ovi s i ons c odi f i ed i n Sec t i on 27- 77- 7 a r e uncons t i tut i onal
. Fi ndi ng t hat th e sta tu te d o e s m e e t co n stitu tio n a l sta n d a rd s a n d tha t A k in s fa iled to p a y th e tax o r p o st a bond i n or dert o gr antj ur i s di ct i on t o the cha ncery court , w e af f i r m the deci s i on of

t he ch an ce ll o r. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. A ki ns has w orked a s a co ntr act or forap proxim at el y fi ft een ye ar s i n St arkvi l l e, M issi ssipp i. F o ll o w ing an au d ito f A k ins’s rec o rds, th e C o m m issi o n asse ssed co n tr ac tor’s ta x e s a g a in s t A k in s fo r t h e p e ri o d o f J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 2 , th ro u g h S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5
. ¶3. D ur i ng that t i m e per i od, A ki ns c om pl et ed w or k on tw o c hur ches
. T he C om m i s s i on det erm i ned thatA ki ns ha d notpa i d the contr act or ’ s t ax on the contr act s f orthe tw o chur ches 3

### Mis si ss ippiCode Sec ti on 27-65- 21(3) ins tr uct s a per son pe rf

orm ing a cons tr uction 4 

### ac tivit y contra ct

to a pply f or and obtain a

materi alpurc has e c erti fi cate from the commissio ner whichmay entitle the h old er to p urch ase materials andservices th at are to beco me a comp on ent part of the structure to be erectedor rep aired w ith n o taxdu e. SeeMiss. Code Ann. § 27-65- 21(3) (Re v. 2010)
. MississippiCode Se ction 27- 65-17(1) (a) s tate s that “e ver y per son e ngaging or 5 

### continuing within t

his st at e in thebusines s of se ll ing any tangibl e pe rs onalprop erty what soe ver

the reis h ereby le vie d, a ss es se d and s hal l becol le ct ed a tax equa l t o se ven perce nt (7%) of the gros s proc ee ds of theret ai l sa le s of thebusines s. ” SeeMi ss . Code Ann. § 27-65- 17(1) (a) ( Rev. 2010).

3 and ow ed $22, 640. A ki ns cl ai m ed thathe w as unaw ar e the contr act s w er e s ubj ectt o t he contr act or ’ s t ax, a nd a s a r es ul t , f ai l ed t o obt ai n a t ax exempt i on f orc om ponentpa r t s . A ki ns 4 pai d no contr act or ’s tax, butar gues thathe di d pay s al es t ax on al l componentm at er i al s at
a r at e of s even per cent, an d t he t axes thatw er e pai d ar e more than s uf f i ci entt o of

f s ett he 5
a s s e s s m e n t d u e fo r t h e c o n tr a c to r’ s ta x . ¶ 4
. Ak i n s a p p e a l e d t h e Co mm i s s i o n ’ s a s s e s s me n tt o th e Co mm i s s i o n ’ s Bo a r d o f Re v i e w. O n A ugus t1, 2008, the B oar d of R evi ew i s s ued an or deraf f i r m i ng the as s es s m entbut
re d u c in g th e a m o u n t to $ 2 0 ,1 3 9 . T h e re a ft e r, A k in s a p p e a le d to th e fu ll C o m m is s io n . A hear i ng was h e l d on J un e 3 , 2 00 9, a nd o n J ul y 14 , 2 00 9, the f ul l Comm i s s i on e nt e r e d an
o rd e r a ff ir m in g th e a s s e s s m e n t a s re d u c e d b y th e B o a rd o f R e v ie w . ¶5. O n A ugus t13, 2009, A ki ns fi l ed an appe al i n chanc ery court , r eques t i ng thatthe s al es t ax he pa i d on componentm at eri al s be appl i ed t o the amountof contr act or ’ s t ax as s es s ed ag a i ns th i m. A s a r e s ul to f the a pp l i c a t i on , Aki ns r e qu e s t e d tha tthe c on tr act or ’ s t ax be deemed t o have be en pai d i n f ul l and t hathe be gi ven a r ef und f ors al es t ax pai d i n exce s s of the as s es s m ent . O n Sept ember14, 2009, i n l i eu of an answ er , t he C om m i s s i on fi l ed a mot i onA t th e tim e o f A k in s’s ap p e a l, S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -7 sta ted th e fo llo w in g , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 6 (1) T h e find ing s an d o rde r of th e co m m issi o n en tered u n d er S ec ti o n 2 7 -77 -5 s hal l be f i nal unl es s the t axpaye rs hal l , w i thi n thi r ty ( 30) days f r om the dat e of the or der , f

i l e a pe t i t i on i n the cha ncery cour tappeal i ng t he or derand pay t he t ax orpos tthe bond as r equi r ed i n thi s chapt er . T he pet i t i on s hal l be f i l ed agai ns tthe St at e Tax C om m i s s i on and s hal l c ont ai n a c onci s e s t at ementof the f act s as cont ended by the t axpaye r , i dent i f y the or derf

rom w hich the appe al is b e in g tak e n a n d se t o u t th e ty p e o f re lief s o u g h t.

. . . ( 3) A pet i t i on fi l ed unders ubs ect i on ( 1) of thi s s ect i on thatappea l s an or der of the comm i ssi on aff

i r m i ng a t ax as s es s m ent , s hal l be ac compani ed by a su re ty b o n d a p p ro v e d b y th e c ler k o f th e c o u rt in a su m d o u b le th e a m o u n t in contr over s y, condi t i oned t o pay the j udgm entof t he cour t . T he cl erk s hal l not a p p ro v e a b o n d u n les s th e b o n d is is s u e d b y a su re ty c o m p a n y q u a lified to w ri te s u re ty b o n d s in th is s ta te . A s a n a lte rn a tiv e to th e p o s ti n g o f b o n d , a t axpaye rappea l i ng an or derof the comm i s s i on af

f i r m i ng a t ax as s es s m ent m ay, pr i ort o the f

i l i ng of the pet i t i on , pay t o the age ncy, underpr ot es t , the am ou nt or dered b y the com m i ssi on t o b e paid and seek a ref un d of s uch t axes, pl us i nt er es tther eon. (4 ) . . . T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt in w h ic h a p e tit io n u n d e r su b se c tio n (1 ) o f th is se c tio n is pr o p e rly fil e d sh a ll h a v e jur isd ictio n to h e a r an d d e ter m in e s a id c a u s e o r i s s u e s . . . 

### . Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 7 (Re v. 2005)
. 4 t o di s m i s s . T he C om m i ssi on argue d thatthe cha ncery courtw as w i thouts ubj ect - m att er j ur i s di ct i on beca us e A ki ns f ai l ed t o per f

ecthi s appea l by pos t i ng a bond orpayi ng the t ax. Pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 27- 77- 7, t he cha ncery courthas j ur i s di ct i on overan 6 appea l fr om t he C om m i s s i on onl y i f t he t axpaye rpays the amountor der ed bef or e f i l i ng t he pet i t i on oratt ache s a s ecur i ty bond, f ordoubl e the amounti n contr over s y, w i th the pet i t i on t o ap peal. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 2 7-77-7 (R ev. 2 00 5). T he C om m i ssi on argued that, becau se A k in s h a d fa ile d to p e rf e c t h is a p p e a l, th e a p p e a l s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d
.

### 5

¶6. O n O ct ober 8, 2009, A ki ns f i l ed hi s r es pons e t o the m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and a hea r i ng
w as hel d on O ct ober9, 2009. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, A ki ns ar gued thats ubject
- m att er j ur i s di ct i on w as pr operbecaus e he had pai d s al es t ax on componentm at er i al pur chas es , and i f he had be en pr oper l y cr edi t ed f orthe t ax pai d, Sect i on 27- 77- 7 w oul d be s at i s f i ed. A tt he tim e o f th e h e a rin g , A k in s h a d p ro v id e d d o c u m e n tatio n to th e C o m m iss io n th a t h e h a d p a id
s even pe r centsal es t ax i n the amountof $5, 104. 27 on componentm at er i al pur chas es of $ 7 7 ,2 9 9 .1 0 . In a d d iti o n , A k in s a rg u e d th a t S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -7 v io late d th e F o u rte e n th Am e n d me n tt o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Co n s t i tu t i o n b e c a u s e i td e p r i v e d h i m o f d u e p r o c e s s o f

l a w. T he cha ncel l oradj ourned the hea r i ng, i ns truct i ng the C om m i s s i on t o revi ew t he document at i on pr ovi ded by A ki ns and r eques t i ng A ki ns t o att empt t o obt ai n a bond. ¶7. O n N ovember20, 2009, A ki ns pr ovi ded mor e do c umen t a t i on t o the Com mi s s i on . T he document at i on i ndi cat ed thathe had pai d s even per cents al es t ax i n the amountof $12, 242. 36 on componentm at er i al pur chas es of $187. 961. 70. O n J anuary 14 , 2 01 0, the cha ncel l or
r econve ned the hea r i ng on the C om m i s s i on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he C om m i s s i on r eport ed thati thad r evi ew ed A ki ns’ s re cor ds and w as w i l l i ng t o cr edi tA ki ns i n the amountof $1, 331. 78, r es ul t i ng i n an as s es s m entof $19, 887. T he C om m i s s i on f ur thera r gued that , even
w i th the cr edi t , the co urtl acke d s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. A ki ns r eport ed thathe had att empt ed, butw as unabl e, t o s ecur e a bond, and accor di ngl y, r enew ed hi s cons t i tut i onal obj ect i on s. ¶8. O n M ar ch 9, 2010, the chanc el l or gr ant ed the C om m i s s i on ’s m oti on t o di s m i s s f or lac k o f su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n d u e to A k in s’s fa ilu re to p a y th e tax e s u n d e r p ro tes t o r to pos tbond w i thi n the s t atut ory t i m e per i od al l ot t ed. O n A pr i l 7, 2010, A ki ns f i l ed hi s not i ce

### Ak ins filedhis n otice o f app eal con cernin g th e v al id ity o f a statute, b ut failedto 7 

### serve a co pyof h is brief, clearlysettingout the questio n p resented , onthe Atto rneyGen eral. Purs uant t o Mi ss is sippi Ruleof Appe ll at e Proce dure44(c ), thi s Cour t provide d noti ceand a right to res pond to t

he Att orne y Ge neral
. On August 17, 2011, theAtt orne y Gene ra l f il ed his re spons e. 6 of appea l
. A ki ns ar gues thatthe condi t i ons pr es cr i bed by Sect i on 27- 77- 7 r endert he oppor tuni ty forj udi ci al re vi ew const i tut i onal l y i nadequa t e, depr i vi ng hi m of hi s r i ghtt o due p r o c e s s o f

l a w. 7 DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 9
. "W h e th e r [a p a rty ] r e c e iv e d d u e p ro c e ss is a q u e sti o n o f la w , w h ich th is C o u rt w ill revi ew de n ov o. " J. C

. N . F . v. S ton e Cou n t

y D ep't of Hu m an S ervs. , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 7 6 2 , 7 7 0 (¶ 2 7 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). W h ethe r A k ins rec eive d d u e p roc ess tu rns o n the issu e o f st atuto ry i nt erpr et at i on. St atut ory i nt erpr et at i on i s al s o a m att erof l aw , and i s t o be r evi ew ed de novo. A dam s v. B aptis t

Mem ’l Hos pital -D es oto, I

nc. , 965 So. 2d 652, 655 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t at i ons
o m itte d ). ¶10. A ki ns ' s cl ai m , that he i s bei ng depr i ved of hi s day i n court , i nvol ves t he con cept of p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s . Jones v. Mis s . D ep’t of T r ansp. , 744 So. 2d 256, 265 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng L ogan v. Zim m erm an B r ush Co. , 4 5 5 U. S. 4 2 2 , 4 2 8 , 1 0 2 S. Ct
. 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 4 , 7 1 L. E d . 2 d 2 6 5 (1 9 8 2 ). T o p re v a il, A k in s m u st p ro v e (1 ) h e w a s d e p riv e d o f a p ro tec ted p ro p e rty in te re s t a n d (2 ) h e w a s d e n ie d th e p ro c e s s d u e h im
. Id
. 1. P rotected P rop erty Interest ¶11. T he U ni t ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rthas recogn i zed thatt he "ex act i on of a t ax
cons t i tut es a depr i vat i on of pr operty, [ and ] the St at e mustpr ovi de pr ocedur al s af eguar ds

### 7

a g a in s t u n la w fu l e x a c tio n s in o rd e r t o s a tis fy th e c o m m a n d s o f t h e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e ." McK es s on v. D i v. of

A lcoholi c B eve r ages and T obacco , 496 U
. S. 18, 36, 110 S. C t . 2238, 2 2 5 0 , 1 1 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 7 (19 9 0 ). 2. D u e P rocess ¶1 2. G ener al l y, due pr oces s r e qu i r e s n ot i c e a nd a mea ni ng f ul o ppor tuni t y t o be hear d. V in c e n t v. G riffin , 8 72 So
. 2 d 67 6, 6 78 ( 20 04 ) ( c i t a t i on s o mi t t e d)
. I n the c on t e xtof t ax
as s es s m ent s and col l ect i ons , a meani ngf ul oppor tuni ty t o be hea r d r equi r es thata t axpaye r be pr ovi ded w i th ei thera pr edepr i vat i on pr oces s orpos t depr i vat i on pr oces s t o cont es tt he
v a lid ity o f a n im p o s e d ta x . McK es s on , 4 9 6 U .S . a t 3 6 -3 7
. P redepri vati on P rocess ¶ 1 3
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -5 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ) p ro v id e s a p re d e p riv a tio n p ro c e ss in
w hi ch a t axpaye rhas the opportuni ty t o be hea r d. A n aggr i eved t axpaye rm ay f i r s tappea l t o the B oard o f R evi ew . T he B oar d of R evi ew i s composed of empl oyees of

the age ncy appoi nt ed t o the B oar d by the C om m i s s i onert o hearm att er s i n a quorum of notl es s t han thr ee. Fr om ther e, the t axpaye rm ay appea l to the f ul l C om m i s s i on, cons i s t i ng of t he C om m i ssi on er and t w o A ssoci at e C o m m i ssi on ers . A kins avai l ed h i m sel f of bo th o f these op po rtun i t i es and w as heard by bo th ad m i nis trat i ve b od i es. ¶14. A ki ns ar gues that admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew i s not s uf f i ci ent , and he i s ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al
r evi ew . W e di s agr ee. A dm i ni s tr at i ve- r evi ew pr ocedur es ar e ade quat e i n pr ovi di ng due p ro c e ss if th e h e a rin g s a re c o n d u c ted b e fo re a n in d iv id u a l is d e p riv e d o f a p ro p e rty in ter e st. Matt hew s v. E ldr idge , 424 U
. S. 319, 333, 96 S. C t . 893, 90 2, 4 7 L
. E d. 2d. 18 ( 1976) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

### 8

¶15. A ki ns w as pr ovi ded a pr edepr i vat i on pr oces s, t w o heari ng s t hrough a dm i ni s tr at i ve revi ew , t o co ntes tthe v al i dity o f the tax. A kins w as af for ded du e process. P ostdep ri vati on P rocess ¶16
. In order fora po st dep ri vati on process t o sat i sf y the D ue P rocess C l ause, the S t at e m ust p ro v id e tax p a y e rs w ith a fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to c h a llen g e th e a c c u ra c y a n d leg a l v a lid ity o f th e ir t ax obl i gat i on and a " cl earand ce r t ai n r emedy" f orany err oneous or unl aw f ul t ax col l ect i on. McK es s on , 496 U
. S. at38 ( ci t i ng A tchis on, T . & S. F . R y. Co. v. O ' Connor , 223 U
. S. 280, 2 8 5 , 3 2 S
. C t. 2 1 6 , 2 1 7 , 5 6 L
. E d
. 4 3 6 (19 1 2 )). ¶1 7
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -7 r e q u ir e s th e ta x p a y e r to p a y th e a m o u n t in contr over s y orpos ta bond f ordoubl e t he am ountbef or e se eki ng j udi ci al r evi ew . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 77- 7 ( R ev. 2005)
. I n McK es s on , the U n ited S tat e s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld “ th a t a St at e nee d notpr ovi de pr edepr i vat i on pr oces s f orthe exact i on of t axes . ” Id
. at37. "[ A ] l l ow i ng t axpaye r s t o l i t i gat e thei rt ax l i abi l i t i es pr i ort o paymentm i ghtthr eat en a g o v e rn m e n t' s fin a n c ial s e c u rity , b o th b y c re a tin g u n p re d icta b le in ter im re v e n u e sh o rtfa lls agai ns tw hi ch the St at e ca nnoteas i l y pr epar e, and by maki ng the ul t i m at e col l ect i on of val i dl y i m pos ed t axes m or e di f f i cul t . ” Id
. T h u s, the re q u ir em en t t o p ay the tax b efo re
se e k in g ju d icia l re v ie w h a s b e e n h e ld to p ro v id e tax p a y e rs w ith a fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to chal l enge the val i di ty of the t ax. ¶18. T he St at e m ay s at i s f y the obl i gat i on of pr ovi di ng a cl ear and cert ai n r emedy t hr ough
a n y fo rm o f r e lie f, i n c lu d in g a re fu n d o f t h e e x c e s s ta x e s . Id
. In thi s cas e, A ki ns ar gues t hat he pai d s al es t ax and de s erves a r ef und orcr edi tf

orw hathe pai d overand above w hatw as due as c ontr act or ' s t ax. Sect i on 27- 77- 7 pr ovi des the t axpaye rw i th the pr oces s f ors eeki ng

### 9

a re fun d o r cred itfor a n all eg ed o v erp ay m en t of t ax o r f o r t ax es p aid in p rotest. T h is co u rt h a s h e ld th a t a re fu n d is a c le a r a n d c e rt a in re m e d y . See H . J. W il s on Co. , I

nc. v. State Tax Co m m 'n o

f S tate , 7 37 So. 2d 981 ( M i s s . 1998)
. A ccor di ngl y, A ki ns w as pr ovi ded a pos t depr i vat i on pr oces s , a fai r opp ortuni ty t o chal l enge the t ax and the abi l i ty t o r ece i ve a ref un d if successf ul. A kins w as af

for ded du e process. CO NC L US I ON ¶19. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n s 2 7 -7 7 -5 a n d 2 7 -7 7 -7 p ro v id e d A k in s tw o fu ll
a d m in istra tiv e h e a rin g s a n d a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r ju d icia l re v iew in o rd e r to c o n tes t th e v a lid ity of the t ax as s es s m ent . T he due pr oces s re qui r ement s w er e s at i s f i ed by both a pr edepr i vat i on and a pos t depr i vat i on pr oces s f orr evi ew . Fi ndi ng t hatthe s t atut e does m eetcons t i tut i onal
s t andar ds and A ki ns f

ai l ed t o pay the t ax orpos ta bond i n or dert o gr antj ur i s di ct i on t o t he ch an ce ry c o u rt , w e a ffi rm the d ec isi o n o f th e c h an ce ll o r. ¶20. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOP LH, LA M AR, K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., C O N C U R .