1,317, State v. Sadler
| Decision Date | 14 April 1890 |
| Parties | STATE v. SADLER et al. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Eureka county; A. L. FITZGERALD, Judge.
Gen St. Nev. § 1091, provides that the board of equalization shall have power to determine all complaints made in regard to the assessed value of any property, and may change and correct any valuation, if they deem the assessment either above or below its true value, whether said sum was fixed by the owner or assessor, except that, in case where he person complaining of the assessment has refused to give the assessor his list under oath, no reduction shall be made. Section 1108 provides that the acts required to be performed by the county officer in regard to notices, etc "between the assessment and commencement of suit, shall be directory merely."
Rices & Beatty, for appellants.
The Attorney General, Peter Breen, Dist. Atty., and A. E. Cheney for respondent.
This is an action to recover delinquent state and county taxes.
1. Appellants claim that the court erred in striking out certain portions of their answer, alleging that the assessment was fraudulently and illegally made, in this: that it was not equal in valuation with that of other property similarly situated and of the same value; that it was assessed "in an amount greatly in excess of that authorized by law, to-wit, its true cash value;" that the assessment was arbitrary, as appellant Sadler neither signed, swore to, or made any return of his property; that he appeared before the board of equalization, and protested against the assessment, and demanded that it should be reduced and "fixed at its true value;" and that said board refused and neglected to equalize the same, or any part thereof. This court decided, in State v. Eastabrook, 3 Nev. 180, that it was no defense to a suit for taxes that other property similarly situated was not assessed at all. It is the duty of the assessor to assess all property at its true cash value. If he errs in this respect, the law provides a proper remedy. Gen. St. § 1091. The tax-payer cannot avoid the payment of his taxes on the ground that his property was valued at a higher rate than the property of other persons similarly situated.
The allegation that the property of appellant Sadler was assessed "in an amount greatly in excess of that authorized by law" was not sufficient to raise any issue as to the true value of the property, even if he was otherwise entitled to make such a defense, because it does not state what the true cash value of the property was. Courts do not deal with trifles. To raise an issue facts must be stated, showing that there are real questions involved. The allegation, treated as an ordinary pleading denying an indebtedness, amounts to an admission that the true value of the property was only one mill less than the amount of the assessment. But he is not in a position to complain that his property was not assessed at its true value. The statute provides that the tax-payer who has any cause of complaint in this respect may make application to the board of equalization to have his assessment reduced, (Gen. St. § 1091;) and if he fails to do so his remedy is lost, (State v. Wright, 4 Nev. 251.)
Sadler alleges that he made such an application; but he does not aver that he complied with other provisions of the statute, which it was necessary to do in order to entitle him to any redress before the board of equalization. The statute expressly provides that "where the person complaining of the assessment has refused to give the assessor his list under oath, as required under this act, no reduction shall be made by the board of equalization in the assessment made by the assessor." In construing this provision it has uniformly been held by this court that the board of equalization has no jurisdiction to act unless it is shown that the complaining party furnished a statement to the assessor as provided by law, or that no demand was made for such a statement; that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that such statement was furnished, or that no demand therefor was made. State v. Commissioners, 5 Nev. 317; State v. Board, 7 Nev. 83; State v. Railroad Co., 17 Nev. 260. The allegations did not present any question of fraud in the assessment. The court did not err in striking out the allegations, as they did not constitute any defense to the action.
2. The objections made to the introduction of the delinquent tax-roll in evidence, in so far as the same relate to a want of proper verification by the county treasurer as required by law, will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inland Lumber & Timber Co. v. Thompson
...Idaho 170, 37 P. 274. The allegation of the appellant that the assessment was unequal and unjust as to it is not sufficient. (State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13, 23 P. 799; Albuquerque Bank v. Perea, 147 U.S. 87, 13 194, 37 L.Ed. 91; National Bank v. Kimball, 103 U.S. 732, 26 L.Ed. 469; Wagoner v.......
-
MacLaren v. Kramer
... ... The ... question as to whether a transfer is fraudulent is, in this ... state, one of fact, and not one of law. Rev. Codes 1905, ... Voluntary ... general ... 259, 14 P. 356; Turner ... v. Franklin, 10 Ariz. 188, 85 P. 1070; State v ... Sadler, 21 Nev. 13, 23 P. 799; Rankin v ... Newman, 107 Cal. 602, 40 P. 1024, 41 P. 304; Subera ... ...
-
Meserole v. Whitney
... ... afterward to raise objections to the assessment. ( State ... v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13, 23 P. 799; Cal. Domestic ... Water Co. v. Los Angeles Co., 10 ... ...
-
Noble v. Amoretti
...C., 114.) The delinquent tax list does not appear to be considered greater authority than the original list from which it comes. (State v. Saddler, 21 Nev. 13.) where there is a defect in the special warrant for the collection of non-resident taxes, it seems to be permissible to fall back o......