Greene v. Federal Coal Co.

212 S.W. 580, 184 Ky. 664, 1919 Ky. LEXIS 107
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJune 10, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 S.W. 580 (Greene v. Federal Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Greene v. Federal Coal Co., 212 S.W. 580, 184 Ky. 664, 1919 Ky. LEXIS 107 (Ky. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Settle

Reversing.

This appeal brings to ns for review a judgment of tbe Franklin circuit court granting tbe appellee, Federal Coal Company, a writ of mandamus directing tbe appellant, Robert L. Greene, as Auditor of 'Public Accounts of tbe State of Kentucky, to draw bis warrant on tbe treasurer of tbe state in appellee’s favor for $2,700.00 alleged to bave been paid by tbe latter under a mistake of law and fact to tbe clerk of tbe Bell county court as a tax due tbe state for tbe recording in bis office of a mortgage on real estate executed by appellee to secure a loan of $1,350,000.00, made it by tbe Chattanooga Savings Bank of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Tbe circuit court overruled a demurrer filed by appellant to the petition and tbe latter’s refusal to plead further resulted in tbe judgment appealed from.

Tbe facts are that sometime prior to September, 1917, appellee purchased of one C. M. Preston, trustee in bankruptcy of tbe Continental Coal Corporation, 16,000 acres of land in Bell county and received of him a deed to same; and on tbe 15th of September 1917, appellee borrowed of tbe Chattanooga Savings Bank the $1,350,-000.00 mentioned and then executed to it tbe mortgage on tbe 16,000 acres of Bell county land to secure its payment, which mortgage was on tbe same day duly [666]*666acknowledged by the mortgagor, lodged for record in the office of the clerk of the Bell county court, and in due course recorded therein. Upon lodging the mortgage in his office for record, appellee paid W. C. Bingham, clerk of the Bell county court, his fee for recording the instrument and in addition $2,700.00; the latter sum being the total amount of a tax of twenty cents upon each $100.00, of the $1,350.00.00 indebtedness secured by the mortgage in question, which tax was imposed in behalf of the State of Kentucky by the revenue act of 1917. Subsequent to September 24,1917, suit was instituted in the United States court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by S. Thruston Ballard and others v. the Continental Coal Corporation, C. M. Preston, its trustee in bankruptcy, the appellee, Federal Coal Company, and the Chattanooga Savings Bank, seeking a cancellation of the deed from Preston, trustee, conveying to the appellee the 16,000 acres of Bell county land, and, also, the cancellation of the mortgage from the latter executed to the Chattanooga Savings Bank. Thereafter a decree was rendered in that action by the Federal court cancelling the deed, also the mortgage in question, and appointing one J. M. Gilbert special commissioner of the court to enter upon the record of the office of the clerk of the Bell county court such cancellations, which was accordingly done by the commissioner.

The present action to recover of the appellant, Robert L. Greene, Auditor of Public Accounts for the State of Kentucky, the $2,700.00, tax paid by appellee to the clerk of the Bell county court upon the recording of the mortgage made by it to the’Chattanooga Savings Bank, was instituted in the Franklin circuit court, March 20, 1919; the grounds alleged in the petition for its recovery being that as appellee did not acquire any title to the lands conveyed it by the deed from Preston, trustee, or in fact own them when it executed and caused to be recorded the mortgage, it was not liable for the tax paid the clerk of the Bell county court upon the recording of the mortgage, and is therefore entitled to recover it of the appellant, Auditor, to whom it was paid by the clerk; and further that the payment of the tax was made under a mistake both of law and fact on its part.

It is insisted by appellee that the recovery of the tax was authorized by Kentucky Statutes, section 162, which provides:

[667]*667“When it shall appear to the Auditor that money has been paid into the treasury for taxes when no such taxes were in fact due, 'he shall issue his warrant on the treasury for such money so improperly paid, in behalf of the person who paid the same.” . . .

Under the decisions of this court the recovery of the tax cannot be sustained upon the ground indicated. In German Security Bank v. Coulter, Auditor, 112 Ky. 582, it was held that the primary object of the statute, supra, was to authorize the Auditor to refund to officers who collected taxes due the state and paid more into the treasury than was in fact due from them; and that it was not intended to authorize the return by the Auditor of a tax improperly assessed against or paid by the individual taxpayer. In Couty v. Bosworth, Auditor, 160 Ky. 312, in interpreting this statute we, in part, said:

“We do not believe that the legislature ever intended to enact a law that would prevent any person who thought he had been required to pay a greater amount of taxes than he thought to be due, or to pay taxes on property that he considered exempt, or even to pay taxes to the sheriff or collecting officer of a county, through mistake, to appear before the Auditor of Public Accounts and require him to take up the merits of the claim; and then if it appeared to him that the tax had been improperly paid to draw his warrant on the treasurer for the amount appearing to him to be due the claimant. ’ ’

The same construction has been given the statute in the following cases later decided: Bosworth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 162 Ky. 344; Lou. Gas and Electric Co. v. Bosworth, 169 Ky. 824.

The tax paid by appellee was imposed by section 4019a, subsection 9, Kentucky Statutes, which provides, in part:

“A tax of twenty cents is hereby imposed upon each $100.00, or fraction thereof of indebtedness, which is or may be in any contingency secured by mortgage on property in this state, which mortgage shall be lodged for record after this act goes into effect, where the indebtedness does not mature within five years.” ...

The word “mortgage” is thus defined in a previous paragraph of the same section as follows:

“The word ‘mortgage’ as used in this section shall include any instrument creating or evidencing a lien of [668]*668any kind upon property given or taken as security for •debt and shall include vendors liens and executory contracts for the sale of property under which the vendee is entitled to the possession thereof.” . . .

It is admitted in this case that the mortgage secured an indebtedness of $1,350,000.00, which did not mature within five years; that the mortgage was a recordable instrument, was duly recorded in the proper office and that appellee paid the clerk the tax. It will be observed that the tax is not imposed upon the mortgage by the statute, but upon the indebtedness secured by the mortgage. The instrument constituting the mortgage evidences the indebtedness and enables the clerk to know the amount of the indebtedness and the amount of tax to be collected upon the indebtedness, the thing taxed.

It is appellee’s contention that the tax was paid under a mistake of law and fact. But the mistake consisted of its belief that it owned the title to the land when it did not. It is not claimed that there was any mistake as to its indebtedness to the bank, for the money was admittedly borrowed by it of the bank, and it was not relieved of the indebtedness by its loss of the land by the decree of the .Federal court.

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

Related

Kelley v. New York Life Insurance
261 S.W. 272 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1924)
Middendorf v. Goodale
259 S.W. 59 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 S.W. 580, 184 Ky. 664, 1919 Ky. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-federal-coal-co-kyctapp-1919.