Haynie v. Surplus Trading Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
174 Ark. 507
HAYNIE v. SURPLUS TRADING COMPANY.
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court
Opinion delivered June 27, 1927.
- TAXATION—PERSONAL PROPERTY ON MILITARY RESERVATION.—Personal property privately owned within Camp Pike Military Reservation in Pulaski County, held not exempt from taxation by that county under Acts 1903, p. 346, §§ 1, 2, under which the reservation was acquired by the United States.
- TAXATION—PERSONAL PROPERTY OMITTED TROM TAX ROLL.—Personal property not placed on the tax roll was properly valued by the assessor under Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, when notified of the omission, without the assistance of a township board, under Acts 1919, p. 132.
- TAXATION—LISTING OF PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED FROM TAX ROLL.—Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, relating to the manner of listing property erroneously left off the tax roll, held not repealed by Acts 1919, p. 348, creating boards of equalization in all counties.
- TAXATION—ACTION TO RECOVER PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.—In a suit to collect taxes on privately owned personal property located within a military reservation and erroneously omitted from the tax roll and valued by the assessor under Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 9910, the taxpayer, having failed to pursue the statutory remedy, held not entitled to complain of overvaluation.
- TAXATION—STATE PROPERTY.—Where surplus personal property within the Camp Pike Military Reservation was sold by the United States to an honorary commission appointed by the Governor for the benefit of the Arkansas National Guard, and where such commission appointed a particular trading company to sell the property, under contract entitling it to one-half of the profits as compensation for its services, and for advancement of the purchase price, held that the property so sold was not taxable as property of the trading company.
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; reversed in part.
Statement by the Court.[edit]
This suit was brought by the sheriff and collector of Pulaski County, Arkansas, against the Surplus Trading Company to recover certain taxes for the years 1922 and 1923, which the complaint alleges were due by it upon personal property situated in Pulaski County, Arkansas, which it had failed to assess for the years 1922 and 1923, and which the assessor had assessed as property erroneously left off the tax-rolls and to which he had attached the statutory penalty.
The facts necessary to determine the issues raised by the appeal may be briefly stated as follows:
The Surplus Trading Company is a partnership composed of various firms, corporations and individuals. It was organized for the purpose of dealing in military supplies of various kinds owned by the United States and left over after the World War. On April 21, 1922, the Surplus Trading Company paid the United States the sum of $138,492.65 for 87,143 blankets situated on the Camp Pike Military Reservation in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It subsequently sold these blankets for a profit to various firms in the State of Arkansas and in other states. It failed to assess its property for taxation for the years 1922 and 1923, and the assessor of Pulaski County duly assessed the property of said firm at an amount which he had been informed was the value of the property owned by said firm and situated in Pulaski County during the time for assessing said property in said years. The Governor of the State of Arkansas appointed an honorary commission to handle and sell property belonging to the United States situated in said Camp Pike Military Reservation. This property was sold at a reduced price by the United States to said honorary commission for the benefit of the Arkansas National Guard. The honorary commission employed the Surplus Trading Company to handle and sell said property for it. The Surplus Trading Company, as part of the consideration for its employment, agreed to advance the purchase price of said personal property upon the condition that it should be repaid from the sales of said property.
Such other facts will be stated or referred to in the opinion as may be necessary for a determination of the issues raised by the appeal.
The chancellor found the issues in favor of the defendant, and it was decreed that the complaint should be dismissed for want of equity. The case is here on appeal.
H. W. Applegate, Attorney General, and Sam T. & Tom Poe, for appellant.
Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.
[Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice JESSE C. HART.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse