Milligan v. Jefferson County
Milligan v. Jefferson County
Opinion of the Court
The appellant sets forth in his complaint that the treasurer of Jefferson county made an assessment and returned as taxable property of appellant fifty head of sucking calves against his protest; that said calves were not the subject of taxation under the laws of this Territory ; that in payment of such assessment the treasurer seized certain property of appellant and sold it. The respondent demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the appellant assigns this ruling as error.
There is only one question presented in this case. Are sucking calves the subject of taxation under the Kevenue Act ? The appellant claims that calves are not taxable under the statute until they are one year old. The Revenue Act, approved January 12, 1872 (Cod. Sts., ch. 85), contains the following provisions : “ All property, of every kind and nature in this Territory on the first day of January of each year, or -which shall arrive or be found in this Territory before the last day of December, ensuing, shall be subject to taxation except -.” § 3. Calves are not among the exceptions. After the statement of the exceptions the act provides: “ All other property, real or personal, within the Territory is subject to taxation in the manner herein directed, and this is intended to embrace-.” In the following list of property is enumerated “ cows and calves.” § 4. Another section specifies what the tax list shall contain and “ cows and calves ” are again set forth. § 15. From these sections there can be no doubt that the legislature intended that calves should be taxed.
It is urged that the sixteenth section of the act qualifies the foregoing provisions and excludes calves from taxation until they are one year old. It is said that calves under one year of age are not specified in the list. There is no specification of calves. “ Heifers and steers between one and two years old ” are specified. Does the term “ heifers and steers ” include calves ? A heifer is
Tbe list set forth in said sixteenth section is a mere form. It was not intended to exempt from taxation all property that was not specifically mentioned in this list. Tbe oath, which tbe party giving in bis property is required to take, shows that this is not tbe intention: “You do solemnly swear that you will well and' truly answer all questions in tbe following list, and that it embraces all moneys, goods, live stock, credits and all other property of any description whatever, owned or held by you as principal, partner, agent, or representative, as tbe ease may be.” § 16. Tbe pronoun “ it” refers to tbe “ fist.” It could not be construed to refer to “ answer,” because it could not have been contemplated that each answer would embrace “ all moneys, goods, live stock, credits,” etc., considering that “ it ” refers to “ fist” and we find that tbe party giving in bis property must swear that this list embraces all bis property. Why should a party be required to make such an affidavit, if it was understood that all bis property would be given in if true answers were made to tbe questions in tbe list ? Tbe only reasonable solution is that a party who bas other prop
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- and prescribes the form of the list and the articles it shall contain. Cod. Sts. 604