The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-03-04

to put the taxing machinery of the coun ! ty in the hands of the tax adjuster, s far as valuations and assessments wer l concerned, and that for the tax assesso Sto exercise this power in the case of th' property in question was contrary to th whole spirit and purpose of the law, ant indeed to it's express provisions. As wal l said by the court In the cases of Clover dale vs. Cloverdale, supra, where lit eral construction of a statute would have i been in violation of the common law, II ] is found sometimes necessary to depart l not only from the primary and htera meaning of words but also the rules ol grammatical construction, when it is iln' probable that they express the real In tention of the legislature, it being more reasonable to hold that the legislature expressed it's intention in slovenly man which it is presumed nos to intend ih- deed in one case the court hold that the word plaintiff was used where defeno- ant was intended and followed the ap- parent intention of the legislature in con Struing it. Under the well-estapisnSu principle that where an act consists oi several sections, it is a single act, anu the sections are to be construed together the court is of the opinion that the clear legislative intention of the act or 'SI9 that all assessments and valuations oi taxable property within single couhly sEould be made by the tax adJusters'
 But counsel for complainant insist that while this may be the eqnltaple construction of the language or the section and concede that the use or the word tax Assessor was no doupt an oversight, yet the language admits or nothing else than a literal and technl- cal construction of the words used, and therefore the assessment in the instant case was Illegal and void. when the respective duties of thR taxpayer tax assessor and tax adjuster are eonsid- cred, as set forth i'll the act Tn ques- tion it does not appear from the alle- gations of the bill that the assessment under discussion has been made In Vlo- lation of the statute. The taxpayer IS required to render to the tax assessor a list of his taxable property of every description, and to place his valuations thereon (the assessor does not place them he merely elicits information as to items and value and lists them (Secs. AT, AS, 49); in this county the original statement or return made py the taxpayer coconstitutes part or the book of assessments, and this book of assessments is delivered thereon by the county tax adJusters. for valuation and equalization (Sec 63.) From these lists the county tax ad :
 
 able property, and such values entered thereon by the county tax adjusters (Sec. S6.).
 NOT REQUIRED
 Section 12 does not require or direct the assessment of corporate shares by any different proceeding than other personal property is assessed Ihe proper offer of the company makes his return to the tax assessor, showing the total capital stock of the corporation, and all information necessary to estl- mate and to fix the value of the stock. He also, makes return of all taxable property. real and personal owned by the corporation. The law nowhere di- rects or authorizes the tax assessor to fix value on the total shares of the corporation, nor to value the real estate. On the contrary, as elsewhere shown, this power is vested exclusively in the tax adjusters. Section 12 simply directs that the tax assessor shall de- duct the reasonable cash value of the real estate and personal property of the corporation from the total value of the corporate shares and 60 per cent of the remainder shall constitute the taxable value of the shares. If we are to look for a technical construction of this sec tion we must look else where for the power to make the valuation of the shares and the taxable real and per sonal property, and this power rests with the tax adjusters as before shown. The section referred to does not re- quire the tax assessor to make this de- duction at the time, or upon the origi- nal assessment list or upon any par ticular list or book, or that such de- duction shall be original. Non con stat 1t may be ton 8 literal construc- | tion) a mere copy of the deductions made. as directions to him, by the tax ad1usters, in accordance with their duty and authority and may be on the origi- nal list, or on the abstract required to be furnished the tax collector, state auditor and state tax commission Granting, as alleged in the bill, that the value of the shares was fixed by the | tax adjusters, this duty is not imposed on the tax assessor by the language of section 12, but is conclusively lodged in the tax adjusters elsewhere in the act and when the separate valuations are made the deduction is a mere clerical act. Even under a technical construc- tion of section 12. when compared with other sections of the act does not show an illegal or even an irregular assess ment.
 NO APPLICATION
 "If the court is correct in it's ruling | tlldl tHS NdludtlOu ana dSStSSlflCAb III this case is not invalid, then the con tention of the complainant as to due process of law has no application, for 1 the act provides for all hearings by proper tribunals as to any objections to assessm ents or valuations made by tax adjusters.
 "The court is therefore of the opin- ion that the demurrers of the respond ent to that part of the bill other than subdivision of paragraph A. of com plainants, are well taken, and it Is therefore ordered, adjudged and de- creed, the demurers to said bill be and they are hereby sustained, except as to subdivision 4, paragraph 4.
 However, it is a complete defense to | the payment of the taxes from which relief is sought, if the allegations of subdivision 4, paragraph are true 1 The allegations show that complain ant has been assessed and has paid the tax required under section 168 ct seq. of the bill, which, if true exempts l 1t from the payment of the tax from which relief Is sought. But if, as inti- mated in argument, the tax paid is that required under section Is ct sea, this would not be ground for relief
 While, if the allegations contained in subdivision 4 paragraph of the Dill are true, they contain complete defense to the payment of the taxes from which relief is here sought, yet, if the court is correct in it's ruling that the assessment complained of is in conformity to the letter and spifit of the act, yet, under section 273, ct seq. of the act the complainant has rem edy for the wrong complained of If it has paid the franchise or intangible tax as set forth in section 16S ct seq, as alleged in the bill then the assess