{
  "id": 1897159,
  "name": "State Ex. Rel. Marion County v. Certain Lands; and State Ex. Rel. Featherston v. Certain Lands",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Marion County v. Certain Lands",
  "decision_date": "1882-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ark. 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727033
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/19/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Cal. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4669,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.935267382827775e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4205718171213843
    },
    "sha256": "93b3613faf1f3bb691f55ddb09d67adcbe310b9df304ceed45314edf290d6902",
    "simhash": "1:82c4f654b32985b2",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:35.838243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State Ex. Rel. Marion County v. Certain Lands, and State Ex. Rel. Featherston v. Certain Lands."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nThese were bills to enforce; the payment of overdue taxes, brought under the Act of March'll2, 1881, and the amendatory Act of March 22, 1881. They allege that certain described parcels of land were subject to taxation for certain years, but from some cause had been omitted from the assessment rolls. And it was prayed that the Assessor might be required to assess the lands at their actual value for those years and that the amount of taxes due might be ascertained by the court upon an ext\u00e9nsion based upon the levies made by the State and the County Court for said several years, for which a lien should be declared and a sale of the lands ordered.\nIn one case, upon the intervention and demurrer of the owner of one o\u00ed the tracts mentioned, the Court dismissed the causo, holding the Act to be unconstitutional. In the other case, no defence was interposed; but on final hearing the bill was dismissed for the want of equity.\nBoth bills contain the substantial averments that are required by the Act. And See. 1, 8 and 20 of the Act make provisions for the case where, from inadvertence or other cause, lands that are taxable have escaped assessment.\nWe do not recall any constitutional privilege, nor any principle of natural justice, which this law invades. It is certainly right that all, who in their persons or their property, enjoy the protection of the government, should contribute to its support in proportion to their means.\nThe Constitution of 1874, Art. II, Sec, 23, expressly concedes the State\u2019s ancient right of taxation. And it imposes sundry limitations upon the exercise of that right. But the power to levy and collect taxes is not'derived from that instrument.; being, indeed, an essential attribute of sovereignty and necessary to the continued existence of all governments, whatever their form.\nIt is provided that ihe assessment and taxation of property shall be equal and uniform throughout the State, according to value ; but the ascertainment of values, as well as all other details of levying and collecting taxes are left to the discretion of the Legislature. Constitution of 1874, Art. XVI, Sec. 5.\nSome of the Acts, under which levies were made for some of the years in question, have been repealed either expressly or by implication. When the taxes had already become due, as in cases where the lands had been assessed, but payment had not been made, a retrospective operation should not be given to the repealing statute. It can not be supposed that the General Assembly intended to remit those taxes. Oakland v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 503.\nAnd with regard to lands that have never been assessed, as in the present cases, the Act in question is sufficient authority to collect taxes upon them according to the rates levied by the proper authorities for State, County and. School purposes during the omitted years.\nThe overdue Tax Law was repealed by the Act of February 17, 1883, but this does not affect pending proceedings. Gantt\u2019s Digest, Sec. 5624. McCuen v. State, 19 Ark. 636.\nThe judgment of the Marion and Scott Circuit Courts are reversed and the cause remanded with directions in the one case to overrule the demurrer to the bill and in both to proceed in conformity with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. F. Wilson, for Appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State Ex. Rel. Marion County v. Certain Lands, and State Ex. Rel. Featherston v. Certain Lands.\n1. Over-due Tax Law : Constitutional. The over-due tax law of March 12,1881, is not unconstitutional.\n2. Statute : Repeal of, does not affect rights or liabilities already accrued.\nWhen a statute, for the levy and collection of taxes has been repealed, the repeal does not operate retrospectively so as to remit taxes already due and unpaid; and the repeal of the overdue tax law by act of February 17, 1883, did not affect pending proceedings under that law for the collection of taxes.\nAPPEAL from Marion County.\nHow. J. H. Patterson, Circuit Judge.\nAPPEAL from Scott County.\nHon. J. H. Rogers, Circuit Judge.\nJ. F. Wilson, for Appellant.\nThe States ancient right of taxation is fully and expressly conceded in Sec. 23, Art. 2, Const. It is inherent and based upon necessity. Cooley Const., Lim, 580 ; Burroughs on Taxation, 370. The Act of 1831, p. 64, \u201cOverdue Tax Law,\u201d is but the State\u2019s remedy provided by her Legislature for the recovery of her taxes past due, and is a necessary one. The Constitution is not the souree of the State\u2019s power to tax, it is but the limitation on that power inherent in the Legislature. Burroughs Taxation, 370. The Act does not conflict with Sec. 5, Art. 16, Const., nor any other of its requirements.\nIt is constitutional.\nO. B. Moore, Att\u2019y.- Gen., for the State, adopts Mr. IV ilson\u2019s brief. v"
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 33,
  "last_page_order": 36
}