delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant filed a petition with the board of supervisors of Adams county, praying that the assessment for taxation for the year 1921 of its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits be reduced, which the board declined to do, and it appealed to the court below, where the cause was submitted to the judge for decision without a jury, who after hearing the evidence entered an order approving the ruling of the board of supervisors, from which the appellant appeals to this court.

*43The petition, all of the allegations of which are supported by uncontradicted evidence, is as follows:

“Your petitioner, Bank of Commerce, avers and alleges it is a banking corporation under the laws of the state of Mississippi, with domicile in Natchez, Miss.; that it has five hundred shares of capital stock of par value of one hundred dollars per share, or total par value of fifty thousand dollars; that, in compliance with the statute so requiring, it gave in to the assessor the amount of its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits as shown by its books on February 1, 1921, which shows the book value of its capital stock as increased by its surplus and undivided profits to be considerably in excess of the real or market value on February 1, 1921, of its capital stock as increased by the surplus and undivided profits shown on its books; that on February 1, 1921, the fair market value of its capital stock, including the surplus and undivided profits, was only one hundred and twenty dollars per share, or sixty thousand dollars for the entire capital stock, from which should be deducted the thirteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents assessed against its real estate in Catahoula parish, La., leaving forty-six thousand, three hundred and thirty dollars and forty-four cents to be assessed against its capital stock, ■surplus, and undivided profits.

“The premises considered, petitioner prays that the assessment against it upon its capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits be reduced to said sum of forty-six thousand, three hundred and thirty dollars and forty-four cents.”

Section 4273, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code, section 6907), as amended by chapter 193, Laws of 1920, in so far as it provides for the taxation of incorporated banks, is as follows:

“The president, cashier, or other officer having like duties, of each bank or banking association in this state, existing by the laws of this state, shall deliver to the assessor of taxes of the county in which it is located, a written statement, on or before the first day of May of each *44year, under oath, of the number and amount .of all the shares of its capital stock paid in, . . . and of the sum of all undivided profits or surplus or accumulation of any sort constituting part of the assets of the bank and not including its real estate; and the value of such shares estimated at par and increased by the proportion of the par value of all the shares of stock to the said surplus fund or accumulation, . . . shall be the basis of the taxation of such shares to the bank . . . and the taxes levied on such assessment shall be a first lien on the assets of the bank, but if the shares of such bank or banking association are of less value than par, they shall be valued accordingly.”

The contention of the appellee in effect is, and the court below seems to have held, that this statute requires a bank to give in to'the tax assessor the sum of its undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations as the same appear on its books, and that it should be then assessed with the sum of its capital stock, undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations as given to the assessor, although the bank’s actual undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations may be in fact less than that carried on its books as such, resulting, when such is the case, in the shares of stock being assessed at more than their true value.

Section 112 of our state constitution provides that “property shall be assessed for taxes . . . according to its true value,” and section 181 thereof provides that — “The legislature may provide for the taxation of banks and banking capital, by taxing the shares according to the value thereof (augmented by the accumulations, surplus, and unpaid dividends), exclusive of real estate, which shall be taxed as other real estate.”

The evident purpose of the latter section of the constitution is to permit the legislature to provide that banks be not taxed on their specific property in which their capital may be invested, but in lieu thereof on the aggregate value of the shares into which their capital stock is divided, in determining which the bank’s accumulations, surplus, and *45unpaid dividends must be taken into consideration. Construed in this light, the requirement of the statute herein-before set out is that the sum of the bank’s actual undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations shall be given into the tax assessor, and not necessarily that carried on its books as such. The books of a bank may or may not disclose what its actual undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations are, for it may have failed to charge off uncollectable losses; property owned by it may be worth more or less than the value at which it is being carried on its books, etc. The requirement of the statute is not that fictitious undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations shall be given in for assessment, but such only as constitutes, in the language of the statute, “part of the assets of the bank.”

It is the duty of the tax assessor to assess the shares of the bank’s capital stock at their true value, and he cannot do this unless he is advised' of the amount of the bank’s capital stock and of the sum of its actual undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations, if it has such in fact. What the appellant should have done was to have given in the sum of its actual undivided profits, surplus and accumulations and not that which it is carrying 'on its books as such, but its failure to do so does not deprive it of the right to have its assessment reduced to the proper amount. The only evidence introduced as to the value of the shares into which the appellant’s capital stock is divided was that their market value was one hundred and twenty dollars each, making their aggregate sixty thousand dollars, which valuation necessarily includes not only the bank’s'original capital, but its accumulations. Consequently, in the absence of other evidence, it must control. The appellant pending this appeal paid state and county taxes to the amount of five hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty cents in excess of what it should have paid had the board of supervisors reduced its assessment in accordance with its request so to do.

*46The true value of the appellant’s capital stock, undivided profits, surplus, and accumulations being, according to the evidence, sixty thousand dollars, from which the value of its real estate, amounting to thirteen thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty-six cents, should be deducted, the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and judgment rendered here, reducing the appellant’s assessment on its capital stock, undivided profits, and surplus to forty-six thousand, three hundred and thirty dollars ancl forty-four cents, and awarding it a recovery of the five hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty cents paid by it as taxes on the excess value of its property pending this appeal, as provided by section 4310, Code of 1906 (section 6944, Hemingway’s Code).

Reversed and judgment here.

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, but I arrive at this conclusion through a different interpretation of the meaning of the act involved.

I think the true interpretation of the legislative mind as expressed in the act is that the banks are required to render their assessment in the manner prescribed, which should be taken by the assessing authorities, not as conclusive of value, but as a basis of taxation only. A different construction of the act, that is to say, that the statement rendered, showing the number and amount of shares and the surplus, undivided profits, and accumulations constituting the assets of the bank, shall be conclusive of the value of the stock, when in fact it was worth more or less than shown thereby, would contravene section 132 of the Constitution, which provides that. property shall be assessed at its true value.

I shall set out the pertinent parts of the act because it is necessary to have it before you for close examination in order to better ascertain its meaning and purpose. The act is as follows:

*47“The president, cashier, or other officer having like duties, of each hank or banking association in this state, existing by the laws of this state, shall deliver to the assessor of taxes of the county in which it is located, a written statement, on or before the first day of May of each year, under oath, of the number and amount of all the shares of its capital stock paid in, . . . and of the sum of all undivided profits or surplus or accumulation of any sort constituting part of the assets of the bank and not including its real estate; and the value of such shares estimated at par and increased by the proportion of the par value of all the shares of stock to the said surplus fund or accumulation, . . . shall be the basis of the taxation of such shares to the bank.”

The main opinion goes upon the theory, with which I differ, that the bank should, in the first instance, render a statement, showing the actual or true value of the surplus and accumulations, from which valuation the capital stock would be accordingly increased in value. I do not agree with this view, because I believe the act means to require the bank to render the statement, showing the amount of shares of capital stock and the sum or aggregate of all surplus and accumulation, not including real estate, thus showing the value of the shares as increased by the surplus or accumulation; and the statement shall be the basis of the taxation against the bank. The amount of all the items thus shown is not to be considered a conclusive fixation of the value of the property, but it is a basis of valuation, and the true value may be shown, and, when ascertained, it shall govern as the value for taxation.

In an effort to malee my view understood I will put it in this way: The purpose of the law is to say to the bank, you must render your statement to the assessor, showing the number and amount of the shares of capital stock, and of the sum or aggregate of all undivided profits, surplus, or accumulations constituting part of the assets of the bank, not in chiding real estate; and the value of such shares shall be increased in proportion to said surplus and *48accumulation, which, increased value of the shares shall be the basis for the taxation of the bank. That is, that the bank is required to uncover and state what it claims and its books show as the shares of capital stock, undivided profits, surplus, or accumulation of any sort which are part of the assets of the bank. When this is done the value of the shares of stock will appear according to the increased value on account of such surplus and accumulation. This valuation for assessment, however, is not conclusive of the actual or true value of the shares of capital stock, but the ti*ue value may be shown by the bank the same as any other taxpayer may show the true value of his property for taxation.

But the act intends that the bank must file the required statement, Avhich shoAvs its hand and discloses all of its property assets, which can only be ascertained from its books. If the vieAV I entertain is not correct, then it seems to me that the act is phrased in useless language, requiring the detailed statement of the aggregate items composing the assets of the bank, Avhen a statement merely of the value of the stock would meet the view of the main opinion.

If the bank is permitted under this act to render a statement placing its oavii valuation upon the different items required to be stated, regardless of Avhat its books shoAV, then it would be afforded opportunity to conceal its assets as shoAvn by the books, and thus defeat what I think was plainly intended otherwise.

I have discussed the difference in our views because I think the manner of rendering the statement as prescribed by the act is .really important to both the state and the banks.