Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. Ravalli County

• Citation: 158 P. 682,52 Mont. 422
• Decision Date: 07 June 1916
• Docket Number: 3668.
• Parties: ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. RAVALLI COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

158 P. 682

52 Mont. 422

ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. RAVALLI COUNTY ET AL.

No. 3668.

Supreme Court of Montana

June 7, 1916

Appeal from District Court, Ravalli County; R. Lee McCulloch, Judge.

Action by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company against Ravalli County Mont., and H. L. Hart, County Treasurer of Ravalli County. Judgment for defendants, new trial denied, and plaintiff appeals. Judgment and order affirmed.

Elmer E. Hershey, of Missoula, for appellant.

J. B Poindexter, Atty. Gen., and W. H. Poorman, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondents.

HOLLOWAY J.

Prior to 1913 the Anaconda Copper Mining Company had owned certain lands in Ravalli county which it had sold, reserving to itself the minerals and the right to mine the same; also a right of way over the land, or any part, for mining purposes or for removing timber from adjoining lands. In 1913 the assessor listed these lands, with the reservations, for purposes of assessment and taxation to the grantees of the company for the full cash value, and at the same time assessed the reservations to the company at $5 per acre. An effort to have this latter assessment canceled was unsuccessful, the taxes thereon were paid under protest, and this action brought to recover back the amount. The cause was submitted upon the pleadings, amended somewhat by an agreement as to the facts, and from a judgment for defendants and from an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

It is settled by the Constitution and statutes of this state and decision of this court that the reservations mentioned constitute property which is subject to taxation. Const. art. 12, §§ 16, 17; Rev. Codes, §§ 2498, 2501; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Mjelde, 48 Mont. 287, 137 P. 386.

We agree with appellant that the record presents a case of double taxation of the same property, but we agree likewise with the learned trial court that the real question for determination is: Who may complain of a double assessment where the same property is listed to two different persons? Any objection which might have been urged against the valuation placed upon these reservations was waived, and the record presents these facts: Plaintiff owned the reservations; they constituted property subject to taxation, that property was correctly assessed to its owner, and the tax levy was in all respects lawful; but it is insisted that plaintiff should not have been compelled to pay the tax because the same property was assessed to plaintiff's grantees and the tax thereon paid by them. It is the duty of the assessor to--

"ascertain the names of all taxable inhabitants, and all property in his county subject to taxation, except such as is required to be assessed by the state board of equalization, and must assess such property to the persons by whom it was owned or claimed or in whose possession or control it was at twelve...