The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-06-18

be complete revision of the tax
 laws and to cover the entire subject
 and would ordinarily operate. with
 out a repeating clause. to repeal bS implication all prior laws in conflicl
 herewith. we think that the repeal
 ing clause of said act and its prede-
 cessors indicate legislative intent
 to repeal only so much of the Code
 of 1907 as is in conflict and which
 may be essential to an efficient en-
 forcement and administration of the
 revenue law, certainly not such parts
 of the Code as may be essential to l give constitutional validity to the
 subsequent enactments. Bailey V. | Howard, supra, ex parte Smith,
 supra. It would be a reflection upon | legislative intelligence to hold that
 hy the present revenue law they re- pealed Section 222S of the Code wit.l-
 out making provision for notice after
 this court had held in the Bailey V.
 Howard case, supra, that notice was
 essential and cited and construed
 said Section 222S, in connection with
 the reassessment of property by the
 State Tax Commission. True, the re- | pealing clause of the Act of 1919 is
 not identical with the one in the Act
 of 1915, and which was considered in
 the Smith case supra. But as used I
 legislative intent and purpose to re-
 peal only so much of previous enact | ments as are in conflict herewith and thereby indicates that it was not
 therefore intended as complete and
 exclusive, in and of itself
 The rule that a later act, covering
 the whole subject of a prior one and
 embracing new provisions, plainly
 showing that it was intended as
 substitute, operates by implication to
 repeal the prior act, Is subject to the
 qualification that where the later acr
 expresses the extent to which it is
 intended to repeal prior laws, as by
 clause repeating all laws and parts
 of laws in conflict herewith, it ex-
 cludes any implication of more ex- | tended repeal."-Great Northern R. k.
 v United States, 155 Fed. Rep. 945.
 This holding is not only proper,
 but in effect requires notice to the
 taxpayer before his property is re-
 valued and reassessed by the State
 Tax Commission under paragraph
 "m' of Section 13S, and removes the
 constitutional objection to said para graph as suggested in the opinion of
 Justice Gardner The legislature
 evidently did not intend to cut off
 notice after this court had held it
 was essential and must have in-
 tended that Section 222S was not
 repealed. Just as Section 2229 fixes the time within which an appeal can
 be taken. Paragraph I'm" of Section
 1SS, for instance, provides for an ap- | peal to the county commissioners or board of revenue, thus changing Sec
 tion 2229 of the Code as to the forum in which the appeal Is to be heard,
 but 1t could not be logically held that the time limit was changed when the last enactment fixes no time. We concede that certain portions of
 the demands are too broad and in- definite and that they are erroneous in so far as they seek a production
 of the books, etc, to the state
 Tax Commission at the Capitol, as we think that the law contemplates that the revaluation and reassessment un-
 der paragraph I'm" of section 13S, and
 the hearing in connection herewith should be in the county in which the
 property to be reassessed is situated.
 This is manifest from the notice re-
 quired by section 222S of the Code of 1907. And in addition to- this, it $ apparent that the last enactment throughout contemplates that these tax controversies should be heard in
 the county where the property is sit, uated When the assessments are set
 aside by the State Commission as per the county, municipal or precinct basis, it is to be reassessed by the l local tax machinery, and while tue State Commission is given the rigkt to reassess after setting aside the individual assessments as covered by section 13S of the act, the law con templates that the hearing should be by said State Commission in the
 county where the property is situat- ed. Section 2228 not only contem- plates this but the present act au-
 thorizes and requires said Commits
 sion to visit the respective counties
 and provided for it's expenses being paid by the state. In other words,
 while the act. by sections 21, 14S and | AIT are intended to afford the tass authorities all reasonable and neces sary information and data m the as
 sessment, adjustment and equaliza- ton of taxes throughout the state. il was not intended that the taxpayers from all parts of the state should be compelled to transport their books. records, etc, to the Capitol at
 Montgomery, but should do so at the courthouse of the county in which the property is situated As above stated,
 some of the demands were too gen eral and the requirement that the books, etc, he brought to Mont gomery, was not authorized, yet the answer to the duces tecum, while
 questioning the right and authority
 as to time and place of delivery also Questiohed the general right or au- thority to demand the production and therefore justified resort by the l State Tax Commission to the courts to compel submi and obedience. While we think that the petition con tained items and demands defective for reasons above set forth, it sought alternative relief, and the appellees demurrer thereto was not directed against so much of the petition or the things sought as were improper. put were directed against the same in It's entirety In other words, there was no ground of demurrer raising the poin, against so much Of the petition as sought the production of the books at Montgomery Instead of Birming- ham, or against such parts of same as were too general and indefinite. and as some of the demands were sufficient the trial court erred Tn sustaining the demurrer to the peti ton in it's entirety Moreover, the fact that the duces tecun was broader than it should have been did not relieve the parties from respond ing or from a contempt for failing 10 do so--Hale V. Henkle, POI u- S- 43 Consolidated Co. V. Vermont 2oi U. s. S41.
 The judgment of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the pet'-
 tion and dismissing said petition IS reversed, a Judgment is here rendered |overruling said demurrer and setting aside the dismissal of the petiron and the cause Is remanded in order that the parties may proceed in con
 <t~-s