Davis v. State Ex Rel. County Board of Equalization
This text of 78 So. 313 (Davis v. State Ex Rel. County Board of Equalization) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal involves the construction of section 4 of the revenue law adopted September 14, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 389), which section reads as follows:
“Cotton and other agricultural products shall be exempt from taxation in the hands of the producer or in the hands of the purchaser purchasing the same for prompt shipment, and all manufactured articles including pig iron, shall be exempt from taxation in the hands of the producer or manufacturer for twelve months after its production or manufacture.”
The contention of the state is that the exemption of cotton as provided in this section is only for cotton raised the preceding year. To sustain this contention, our attention is directed to section 2, subd. 7, of the same act, wherein a long list of exemptions are set out, among which is cotton which was grown the preceding year. Subdivision 1 of the same section exempts all manufactured articles which shall remain in the hands of the manufacturer thereof on the 1st day of October of the year in which the articles were manufactured. Cotton in the hands of the producer and manufactured articles in the hands of the producer, were exempted as provided in the subsection above set out in section 2061, subd. 8, of the Code of 1907, and re-enacted into the revenue law of 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 159). It was not until the act of 1915 that these items were made the subject of a separate section whereby they were specifically exempted.
To read and construe section 4 as contended for by the state would be to ignore all the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and punctuation, while to read and construe it as it is written clearly exempts cotton in the hands of the producer from taxation without any limitation. Considering the section itself as it is written, the conditions existing at the time of its passage, and the public policy of the state with reference to this product, we must conclude that it was the intent of the Legislature to exempt all cotton and other agricultural products in the hands of the producer or in the hands of the purchaser purchasing same for prompt shipment from taxation, under the general revenue bill of the state.
On the agreed statement of facts, the defendant was entitled to a judgment, and in rendering a judgment for the state the trial court was in error. The judgment is reversed, and a judgment is here rendered for the defendant.
Reversed and rendered.
197 Ala. 40.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
78 So. 313, 16 Ala. App. 397, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-ex-rel-county-board-of-equalization-alactapp-1918.