The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-06-18
mpete Text of Supreme Court Decision Tax Commission Gas

rendered june 16, 1921, is as follows:
 THE STATE OF ALABAMA-JuDI- sClAL DEPARTMENT THE SU- sPREMH COURT OF ABABANA. oC- roBER TERM, 192o-2l. Div. 9s3-
 State Tax Commission, vs. Tenn. ccal, Iron X K. R. Co., ct al Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
 GARDNER. J.--This suit was som rsenced by the appellants, who com rose the state Tax Commission. against the Tennessee Coal Iron & Rallroad Company, and it's president secretary and auditor, as individuals. seeking to require the appeilees by mandamus Co submit the company s books and documents to, appellants inspection, or. in the alternative. to attach the individual appellees under the provision of section 14s of the Revenue Act of 1919.
 We leave a statement of the rele- want facts set up in the petition to the reporter; and In this opinion make merely general reference thereto.
 The respondent company is shown to be corporation organized under the laws of Tennessee, duly author ised to do business in Alabama, and is SO engaged in Jefferson County, own ing large acreage of land therein aad possessing valuable property. All of it's books, accounts and papers are in It's offices in Birmingham, and the individual respondents above referred tc have the custody and control thereof.
 It further appears that In January 1919, the company returned list Of the real and personal property to the tax adjusters of Jefferson Coun- ty, and said board of tax adjusters placed @ valuation thereon. which the petition describes as & provisional valuation but which was done with out access to the books, records and documents of the company. l. averred in general terms that 1t Is inpracticable to properly assess the company.s property without access to its books and documents; that after the board of tax adjusters had placed the valuation upon the prop ertx as above stated, petitioners re- alssted the corporation to permit their expert accountants to Inspect the company's books and documents in their behalf. This was denied, and on July 26, 1920, the petitioners act ing as the State Tax Commission set aside the valuation made of the com pany's property by he board of ad- tusters. The Commission issued a subpoena duces tecum, directed to the company and the officers to produce before the mmissioners on Novem- Der Is, 1920. the books and documents as set forth in said subpoena. This subpoena will appear in the state ment of the case.
 A reference is made to section 14S of the Revenue Act to the effect that witnesses falling or refusing to tes- tify before the Commission would be subject to attachment and punish ment for contempt by the circuit court.
 Reference is also made to the effect that the respondent company is liable tax, and that an inspection of it's books and documents Is needfui and necessary for all these purposes.
 There were numerous assignments of demurrer, among them that Il did not appear with sufficient certainty from the petition in connection with what proceedings or controversy be- fore the petitioners it Is sought to require them to produce the book, and documents of the company. ar to Commission to have access to the ccmrany's books and documents, or in connection with waat proceedings 1t is sought to attach the individual respondents for failing to obey the mandate set forth in the petition, and. further, that 1t does not appear with sufficient certainty what books and documents it was sought to re- Quire the respondents to produce. There are other assignments of de- nurrer to the effect that no necessity is shown for such examination, and the proceeding is an attempt to pro cure an unreasonable search and iseizure of respondents papers in vio- ,lAtion of the Constitution. The de- murrer to the petition was sustained, and the rule nisi quashed. Petition CTS declined to further amend the .petition, and the same was dismissed. and this appeal is prosecuted to re- view the rulings of the court below thereon.
 There are presented upon this ap- peal some questions which are re- ferred to as subsidiary" but which. in our opinion, need no separate treatment, as we base the conclusion reached upon questions which are 'iundamental and reach the merits of the cause.
 It is noted that the avermcnts of the petition in connection with what proceeding or controversy before the spetitioners the books and documents referred to are sought to be pro- sdCced, is stated in a vague and in definite manner Indeed, counsel for appellants, as we understand the arr Rument, both orally upon submission and in brief, insist that no proceed ing or controversy of any character is required for the exercise of the power to have produced the books and documents of the respondent corr poration; but that under the pro- visions of section l3S of the Revenue <Act of 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, D. SIS, et seQ.), the State Tax Commission,