The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-10-18

determine objections 20 the assessment
/ Board met at Raymond first Monday II
August, and on that day and the two follow
ing days heard and determined objections Z
| The rolls. and on the fourth day adjourned tt
meet at Jackson on Monday, the 1lth of Aug
ust 1879, which is objec.ei to because
the boacd met twice in succession 9
RAYMOND, they being reqaireu by Act Of 1o't
| to meet alternately at Raymond and Jackson
| 4. Ga August 18th Board met at jackson
aud che day was consumed examining assess
meut rolls" and on the 13th they adjourned
| TO mees at Raymond on the first Monday IL
SeptembeI, 1879, at when time AID place they
d;d meet and ea.e.ed on their minutes 81
oder ap3roy lg The rolls aud levying the tax
for 1879. Il is objected that the meeting. al
Jak SON was illegal and he whole assessment
VOID, because The board. should have con-
.:naed to st ON day to day at its previous
meeting at Raymond until the assessment
rolls were approved.
| 5. That after the tax sale the tax collector
failed to make out and fife Wi nm he time re-
dui ed BY Law, the ISIS o. lands sold the ate
and ind! yiduals, nor were such liss properly
| recorded.
The case below was submitted on b1 an
swer, and exhibits y it'll me agreement chat the
facts stated as objection to the tax lille were
true. The Chancellor dismissed the bill.
shel.on s Shelton, for appellant
TT. ST. A. R. Wha-eo0, eoEtrd.
COopEE, J,
He'd
| The assessment was no. iuva,idated beearse
the BOara OF Supervisors appointed the de'ln-
uuent assessor 10 complete s1e rolls. 1t was
never CONTEMPLATED by lie Legislature, that
Boards Of Supervisors, should under cover of
Ibe authori. y coates red upon them 10 appoint
some suitable person 20 complete the assess
ment where assessors had failed 10 DO SO,
appoint Lae delinquent oheer as his own sue
Gao. and thus e. send the lme gwen % MIN
| BIZ the s.asu.e for he performance of his
ofic,al dntv The IN ention was 20 Inclte the
officer 10 the performance of his duty, BY the
| fear OF The loss Of MS official fees, and no
power was gwen 20 The board 10 e1'end
| directly or Indirectly the time hxed or the
re- o. the rolls by am, out "hlte we lieul,
| be-s OF The 0oacd were by he unauthorized
appoi 4 ment of he delinquent ohcer, guilty
az n viola Lon Of !heir official duty, Tor which
,nev were punishable by lndlctment, the ON
ce- when appointed, was a possession OF the
Office by color of right, aud hls acts as 10 tnlrd
oNeS
Office.
hold IN the Dist day of July at Raymond IN
pu ,suance of he order OF adjournment made
at thei: July Germ was illegal. Il vas not a
,erm the time of VIII ch was fled by law, nor
vas In the manner prescribed by section 1903
of Code of 1871; it was an adjourned meeung
and for such there is no wa-rAntll law. smith
vs.. Nelson, 81 Miss, l38
Under The circumstances however, this
= hat1 on6 a DC
sessment was not inValldased ov lis lnVaI-dltN'
EtIe per inHtiEs non CT.tGtr.
The Leeisla,ule contemplated, that save
onlyin exceptional cases the assessment WouId
be mpleted by the assessor, IN he manner
and within toe lime prescribed, IN winch
arart The tax-payer was required to take
no. ice that on and after the first Monday In
Julv The rolls would be found IN The once OF
the cle"k of Board OF Supervisors, ana would
there remain subject 10 examination ana ex-
ception until Che first Monday OF august
Uben he Board o. Supervisors would convene
IN consider all objections filed, and TO equal-
i7a the assessmen,s This return of the rol!
was 10 he made 70 the clerk OF the board, anu
not the boa itself; it was to remain In ms
possession during the time allowed iof eAcep,
EE"ns and nassed iato the custody of the board
only when this time had e1pi ed, IN the mean
I,me the board could take no step to hx the
assessment as q charge on the taxpayer OUT
II mieit as the agent OF The state and county
at its July Term examine the roll 10 determine
whether The assessor had complied with the
3, 9tu.osy requirements, and i he had not, 1t
might appoint some other person In his place
to complete the work. II the assessor had
perfoi med his duty in the manner aud at the
lime prescribed, no order receiyIngor approx
inc me roll was then made, if the assessor was
in default and another person was appointed
10 complete the rolls, he was to complete such
assess nent in the same manner as the assessor
is required to do by Law, and to make return
thereof at some time to be hzed by the board.
This return was not TO be made to the board,
hnt IN their cle.k, to whom it would have been
returnable if it had been made BY the assessor,
= was before the clerk hat any one de-
string to file objections was 20 go, ana
he was TO Sic anu preserve with tna rolls
any objections SO taken ~ ue
that section 20 of the set Of 1873 declares
thai UWhen The assessment shall be made,
The hoard shall Immediately assemble to
10 examine and receive the 50 ne, ana snall II
necessary appoint some early day 20 hear ana
determine objections thereto. "But nothing
more ia meant by their receiving and examin-
inc the roll, than that they should determine,
as between their appointee and the state, Just
as Mt their July term they determine as pc
tween the assessor and the State, whether he
has performed the duty oeVoiveo On nini.
This IS matter in which the tax payer has no
indiyidual interest, and the failure OF the
hoard to meet for that purpose, or the iact
that the meeting was not lawfully held, gives
nj more right to attack the assessment man
bs u1onld have had if it had been legally MED
by the assessor ana tne po0Eu Ia" A"At0U W
hold its July term.
The failure of the board to remain In con-
t;nnous session at their August meet
ing, until all objections to the roll had
been disposed of and all proper corTecHons
made did not render the assessment Illegal.
The object of the legislature in providing
thai the board should sit from day to day
until this should have been done was that
ample time should be given to properly dis
nose of the exceptions, and 1t WAS the length
"a the term and not its continuity that was
intended to be provided for. II is equivalent
IN saving, the board shall continue In session
q long as the business shall require.
No order was made at the August term APP
proving the roll IS corrected, but such order
was made at the September tern and before
- lev Of the county taxes. In Davis VS..
Vansarsdale SO Miss. we held that the law
CONTEMPLATED an approval by the board OF the
Assessment, without which 1t was m7Iete
In that case nothing appeared IN The record
from which We coul0 inter the TACT OF sueh APP
nroval. but we then thought as we now decide
sbat an approval preceding the levy u the
tax. though made st subsequent term IS suf-
icisnt.
nosed to the assessment have been heard and
determined, and al proper corres nens made
ordinarily It's approval would naturally fol-
low. If in approving the assessment. the
board aess quasi judiciously, Il rather Judges
az the assessment as whole, than Of any $50
latei fact or separate part affecting the rights
If anv particular person. If any error or
irrepalarity has occurred in any previous pro.
eeedine the individual injured thereby has st
the proper time Independently for excepting
lint If all prior acts have been regular and
ieral, the approval by the board Is q matter as
~ whieh no objection would be heard. This
.v,,,-ovai ;e in fact rather q declaration that