
    Smith v. The Mayor & City Council of Americus.
    By the charter of the city of Americus, approved November 11,1889, (sec. 23), the taxing power conferred being in the following terms, “ that for the purpose of raising revenue for the support and maintaining of the city government, the Mayor and City Council of Americus shall have power and authority, and shall prescribe by ordinance for the assessment, levy and collection of an ad valorem tax on all real and personal property within the incorporate limits of said city, except such real property as is used for farming purposes only,” the exception is an attempt to create an exemption of the real property used for farming purposes only, and under the provisions of the constitution of 1877, is null and void. The power to tax extends to all property within the city limits without respect to the purpose for which it is used, unless it be some class or description of property which the constitution expressly empowers the General Assembly to exempt from taxation. There was no error in denying the injunction prayed for.
    August 1, 1892.
    Municipal corporation. Taxation. Before Judge Fish. Sumter county. At chambers, February 20,1892.
    Injunction was sought by Smith to prevent the collection of municipal taxes assessed and levied against his land in the city of Americus, which was used by him for farming purposes only. It was denied on the ground that such lands, in the opinion of the court, are subject to municipal taxation. The plaintiff alleges that the original charter of the city, which was the same as had previously been granted to the city of Oglethorpe (Acts 1851-2, p. 401), contained the provision, “that all lands used within said corporate limits exclusively for farming purposes shall be exempt from the payment of city or corporation tax”; that on February 22,1872, the General Assembly passed an act revising the city charter, containing the same language; that by the act of November 11, 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 961), the subject of taxation by the city was fully and explicitly provided for, expressly excepting “ such real property as is used for farming purposes only ”; that these clauses have never been repealed or modified, and at no time since the grant of its original charter has the city had any power to tax such lands to any extent or for any purpose. The city admits that prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1877 it had no power under its charter to tax such lands, but alleges that since then it has had full power to do so, and that the exception set out in the petition of plaintiff is violative of the .constitution, art. 7, sec. 2, pars. 2 and 4. The other points in the case are immaterial here.
   Judgment affirmed.

Gustin, Guerry & Hall and Guerry & Son, for plaintiff'.

B. P. Hollis and E. A. Hawkins, contra.  