Grand Lodge v. Sarpy County

157 N.W. 344, 99 Neb. 647, 1916 Neb. LEXIS 77
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedApril 1, 1916
DocketNo. 19517
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 N.W. 344 (Grand Lodge v. Sarpy County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grand Lodge v. Sarpy County, 157 N.W. 344, 99 Neb. 647, 1916 Neb. LEXIS 77 (Neb. 1916).

Opinion

Hamer, J.

A real estate mortgage for $6,000 made by John H. Lang-don and his wife to Grand Lodge, Degree of Honor, of Ancient Order of United Workmen of the state of Nebraska, was assessed by the taxing authorities of Sarpy county, Nebraska, as an interest in the real estate therein described, and under the provisions of the mortgage tax law enacted in 1911 (Laws 1911, ch. 105), and they also assessed the remaining equity in the land to John H. Lang-don, the owner. The board of equalization refused to [649]*649strike the tax assessed against this mortgage from the record, and the matter was taken upon the petitions of the appellant and of the intervener, John H. Langdon, to the district court for Sarpy county. Demurrers were filed to said petitions by the said appellants, the said Degree of Honor and said John H. Langdon, upon the ground that the said petitions did not state a cause of action or entitle the petitioners to the relief, prayed for. These demurrers were sustained, and the petitioners appealed from the order sustaining them.

The questions presented are: (1) Should the Degree of Honor be relieved from the payment of taxes on the mortgage? (2) If the court should find that the Degree of Honor was entitled to offset outstanding indebtedness upon beneficiary certificates against this mortgage, should Langdon pay taxes on the entire assessed value of the land, or only upon his equity?

Part of section 6350, Rev. St. 1913, reads: “A mortgage on real estate in this state is hereby declared to be an interest in real estate for the purposes of assessment and taxation. The amount and value of any mortgage upon real estate in this state shall be assessed and taxed to the mortgagee or his assigns, and the taxes levied thereon shall be a lien on the mortgage interest; and the excess in value of the real estate above the mortgage or mortgages-thereon shall be assessed and taxed to the mortgagor or owner of the premises and be a lien on the owner’s interest. The mortgagee or his assigns may pay the tax levied on the interest of the owner and have a lien thereon secured by the mortgage to the extent of the amount so paid with lawful interest thereon. The mortgagor or owner may pay the tax levied on the mortgage interest, and the amount so paid shall be claimed and held to be a payment on the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, and it may offset against any interest due thereon.”

Sections 6349-6353, Rev. St. 1913, relate to the taxation of land and the taxation of the mortgage interest therein. [650]*650It is contended by tbe appellee that a mortgage on real estate in this state, when placed of record, is an interest in real estate for the purposes of assessment and taxation.

It is provided in section 6351 above referred to: “Tbe assessor shall, at tbe time tbe property is assessed, .assess tbe mortgage interest and tbe value of tbe real property above tbe mortgage interest separately.” This is a new classification of property. It permits tbe separate taxation of tbe mortgage and the separate taxation of tbe equity of tbe owner of tbe real estate.

That part of section 6350, not heretofore quoted, reads: “In case of nonpayment of any tax levied upon tbe interest of the owner or mortgagee or assigns, tbe land upon which tbe tax is unpaid shall be sold at tbe time and in tbe manner provided by law for tbe sale of real estate for delinquent taxes; and tbe bolder of either the interest of tbe mortgagor or mortgagee may redeem from such sale tbe interest sold; and the amount paid in redemption shall be treated and cause tbe same rights to accrue in-favor of tbe party making tbe payment as if payment bad been made before sale.”

In State v. Fleming, 70 Neb. 523, 539, it is said: “All property in this state is, by tbe 'Constitution, required to be taxed by valuation so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to tbe value of bis, her, or its property and franchise. It must be conceded that property, whether belonging to tbe citizen or nonresident, must be equitably valued for taxation. When dealing with tbe taxation of property tbe legislature cannot discriminate in favor of tbe resident against a nonresident. Each is to be treated alike, and each is to pay a tax in proportion to tbe value of bis property.” In the same case (p. 523), it is said that tbe question .to be decided is not whether particular provisions of chapter 73, Laws 19Q3, are valid, but whether tbe act considered as a whole is a constitutional expression of tbe legislative will.

In Royal Highlanders v..State, 77 Neb. 18, it was said: “It is further urged that it was tbe intention of tbe legis[651]*651lature in passing the present law to completely exempt fraternal beneficiary associations from taxation. * * * It seems to us, however, that excepting such associations from those special provisions constitutes no evidence of an intention not to tax them, but, on the other hand, it shows an intention to tax them the same as all persons, corporations and other domestic associations. If the legislature had intended to exempt them from taxation, it certainly would have expressed such intention and thus put the question beyond all doubt. So we are of the opinion that the property of mutual benefit associations organized under the laws of this state is taxable the same as the property of individuals, corporations and other domestic associations.”

In Lancaster County v. McDonald, 73 Neb. 453, 458, it is said: “The administration of the laws governing taxation has developed the difficulties, if not the impracticability, of permitting the subtraction of debts and liabilities of the owner of real estate and tangible personal property from its value for taxation. * * * The conclusion is that the legislature, intended that moneys loaned or invested shall be taxed without deductions on account of indebtedness, and the ‘credits’ that are to be taxed are the true credits.”

If a mortgage is to be assessed as an interest in real estate, it is impracticable to consider it a part of a mortuary fund or of any other fund where there is a right of set-off. If it is to be taxed as an interest in real estate, then its classification is changed. It is not real 'estate, but undoubtedly the legislature has the authority to so characterize it, and when it has done so it is no part of any fund, and its character is determined by the limitations of the statute. The interest in the real estate belonging to the owner thereof is taxable in the county in which the real estate is situate, and as soon as the mortgage becomes an interest in real estate by virtue of the statute it is taxed in the same coxuity. Under section 6350, above quoted, the land upon which the tax is unpaid shall be sold at the time and in [652]*652the manner provided by law for the sale of real estate for delinquent taxes, and the holder of the interest of the mortgagor or mortgagee may redeem from such sale the interest sold. This is a change of the law as it existed prior to July 1,1911,' and.section 6858, Rev. St. 1913, provides that all mortgages on real estate recorded prior to July 1,1911, shall be taxable as provided by law under that provision of law relating thereto prior to July 1, 1911. It is clear from the language of the act that it was the intention of the legislature that a mortgage should be assessed as “an interest in real estate.”

It does not appear to be material whether the Degree of Honor is indebted on beneficiary certificates beyond the amount of its fidelity fund.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Temple Lodge No. 6, A.F. A.M. v. Tierney
20 P.2d 280 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1933)
Board of Commissioners v. Murray
208 P. 472 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 N.W. 344, 99 Neb. 647, 1916 Neb. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-lodge-v-sarpy-county-neb-1916.