KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

ASSEMBLY

94

ASSESSMENT

In taxation. The listing and valuation of property for the purpose of apportioning a tax upon it, either according to value alone or in proportion to benefit received. Also determining the share of a tax to be paid by each of many persons; or apportioning the entire tax to be levied among the different taxable persons, establishing the proportion due from each. Adams, etc., Co. v. Shelby ville, 154 Ind. 467, 57 N. E. 114, 49 L. R. A. 797, 77 Am. St. Rep. 484; Webb v. Bid well, 15 Minn. 483 (Gil.* 394); State v. Farm er, 94 Tex. 232, 59 S. W. 541; Kinney v. Zimpleman, 36 Tex. 582; Southern R. Co. v. Kay, 62 S. C. 28, 39 S. E. 785; U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 107 U. S. 1, 2 Sup. Ct 83, 27 L. Ed. 385. Assessment, as used in juxtaposition with taxation in a state constitution, includes all the steps necessary to be taken in the legiti mate exercise of the power to tax. Hurford v. Omaha, 4 Neb. 336. Assessment is also popularly used as a synonym for taxation in general,—the au thoritative imposition of a rate or duty to be paid. But in its technical signification it denotes only taxation for a special pur pose or local improvement; local taxation, as distinguished from general taxation; tax ation on the principle of apportionment ac cording to the relation between burden and benefit. As distinguished from other kinds of taxation, assessments are those special and local imposi tions upon property in the immediate vicinity of municipal improvements which are necessary to pay for the improvement, and are laid with reference to the special benefit which the prop erty is supposed to have derived therefrom. Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis. 599. And see Ride nour v. Saffin, 1 Handy (Ohio) 464; Roosevelt Hospital v. New York, 84 N. Y. 108, 112; King v. Portland, 2 Or. 146; Reeves v. Wood County, 8 Ohio St 338; Wood v. Brady, 68 Cal. 78, 5 Pac. 623, 8 Pac. 599. Taxes are impositions for purposes of general revenue, while assessments are special and local impositions upon property in the immediate vi cinity of an improvement, for the public wel fare, which are necessary to pay for the im provement and made with reference to the spe cial benefit which such property derives from the expenditure. Palmer v. Stumph, 29 Ind. 329. A special assessment is a charge in the nature of a tax, imposed for the purpose of pay ing the cost of a local improvement in a munic ipal corporation, and levied only on those par cels of real property which, by reason of the location of such improvement, are specially bene fitted by it Village of Morgan Park v. Wis wall, 155 111. 262, 40 N. E. 611; Wilson v. Auburn, 27 Neb. 435, 43 N. W. 257; Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N. C. 32. 14 S. E. 521, 17 L. R. A. 330; Sargent v. Tuttle, 67 Conn. 162, 34 Atl. 1028, 32 L. R, A. 822. Assessment and tax are not synonymous. An assessment is doubtless a tax, but the term im plies something more; it implies a tax of a par ticular kind, predicated upon the principle of equivalents, or benefits, which are peculiar to the persons or property charged therewith, and which are said to be assessed or appraised, ac cording to the measure or proportion of such equivalents; whereas a simple tax is imposed for the purpose of supporting the government generally, without reference to any special ad vantage which may be supposed to accrue to

sentation of the ministers and elders of the church, regulated by Act 5th Assem. 1694.— Assembly, unlawful. In criminal law. The assembling of three or more persons together to do an unlawful act, who separate without actually doing it, or making any motion to wards it. 3 Inst. 176; 4 Bl. Comm. 146. It differs from a riot or rout, because in each of the latter cases there is some act done besides the simple meeting. See State v. Stalcup, 23 N. O. 30, 35 Am. Dec. 732; 9 Car. & P. 91, 431; 5 Car. & P. 154; 1 Bish, Crim. Law, § 535; 2 Bish. Orim. Law, §§ 1256, 1259. Compliance; approval of some thing done; a declaration of willingness to do something in compliance with a request Norton v. Davis, 83 Tex. 32, 18 S. W. 430; Appeal of Pittsburgh, 115 Pa. 4, 7 Atl. 778; Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1, 30; Baker v. Johnson County, 37 Iowa, 189; Puller v. Kemp (Com. PI.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 160. —Mutual assent. The meeting of the minds of both or all the parties to a contract; the fact that each agrees to all the terms and con ditions, in the same sense and with the same meaning as the others. Insurance Co. v. Young, 23 Wall. 107, 23 L. Ed. 152. One which affirms that a particular state of facts ex ists ; an affirming promise under seal. ASSESS. 1. To ascertain, adjust, and settle the respective shares to be contributed by several persons toward an object bene ficial to them all, in proportion to the benefit received. 2. To adjust or fix the proportion of a tax which each person, of several liable to it, has to pay; to apportion a tax among several; to distribute taxation in a proportion founded on the proportion of burden and benefit. Al len v. McKay, 120 Cal. 332, 52 Pac. 828; Seymour v. Peters, 67 Mich. 415, 35 N. W. 62. 3 . To place a valuation'upon property for the purpose of apportioning a tax. Bride well v. Morton, 46 Ark. 73; Moss v. Hindes, 28 Vt. 281. 4. To impose a pecuniary payment upon persons or property; to tax. People v. Priest, 169 N. Y. 435, 62 N. E. 568. Where the charter of a cor poration provides for the payment by it of a state tax, and contains a proviso that "no other tax or impost shall be levied or assess ed upon the said company," the word "as sessed" in the proviso cannot have the force and meaning of describing special levies for public improvements, but is used merely to describe the act of levying the tax or impost. New Jersey Midland R. Co. v. Jersey City, 42 N. J. Law, 97. In a general sense, de notes the process of ascertaining and adjust ing the shares respectively to be contributed by several persons towards a common benefi cial object according to the benefit received. ASSENT. ASSERTORY COVENANT. ASSESSED. ASSESSMENT.