Anderson v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 09 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 40425,40426,s. 40425 |
| Citation | 308 P.2d 154,180 Kan. 811 |
| Parties | E. T. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. A. G. DUNN, Charles J. Kohler, T. W. Kasten, The Board of County Commissioners and Board of Equalization of Morris County, Kansas, Roy N. McCue, John L. McNair, and Ira C. Watson, The State Commission of Revenue and Taxation and The State Board of Equalization of the State of Kansas, C. C. Hunter, County Clerk and County Assessor of Morris County, Kansas, and Leland B. Garner, County Treasurer of Morris County, Kansas, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The petitions in a consolidated injunction action by a taxpayer to enjoin the collection of taxes on land and for a further order instructing the taxing authorities to pay back certain taxes paid under protest, are examined, and it is held: (1) The allegations of the amended and second amended petitions sufficiently state capricious, arbitrary, and oppressive actions to constitute constructive fraud; and (2) the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers thereto.
Russ B. Anderson, McPherson, Dale A. Spiegel, Emporia, and Archie T. MacDonald, McPherson, on the brief, for appellant.
Blanton F. Messick, Topeka, Michael A. Barbara, Topeka, and David H. Heilman, Council Grove, on the brief, for appellees.
These actions for injunctive relief were consolidated on appeal.
In case No. 40,425 the appeal is from orders of the trial court sustaining separate demurrers of the board of county commissioners of Morris county, the county assessor and the county treasurer; and the state commission of revenue and taxation, to appellant's amended and second amended petitions seeking to enjoin the collection of taxes assessed against land on the ground of fraud. The final determination in case No. 40,425 will also govern and determine the ultimate outcome of case No. 40,426, which is an appeal taken from an order of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to a petition seeking relief from a subsequent assessment, levy and payment under protest involving the same land.
We shall refer to the board of county commissioners (and to the county board of equalization) as the board; to the state revenue and taxation commission (and to the state board of equalization) as the commission; to appellant as the taxpayer; to C. C. Hunter, county clerk and county assessor as the assessor; and to Leland B. Garner, county treasurer, as the treasurer.
It is admitted by the parties that the only question before us is whether there are sufficient allegations in the amended and second amended petitions (hereafter generally referred to as the petition) to constitute fraud on the part of the officials involved so as to justify the injunction sought by the taxpayer to enjoin the collection of part of his tax.
The petition (case No. 40,425) in the first cause of action set out the legal description of 3,133 acres of land in Morris county; the petition alleged it is the responsibility of the county and state to apportion equitably and to spread government costs through taxation, which duties defendants failed, neglected and refused to perform, thereby causing this taxpayer's burden to be proportionally larger than that of his neighbors; the board and assessor knew or were charged with knowledge of county records pertaining to assessed valuations and facts from viewing the physical characteristics of land belonging to the taxpayer, as well as adjoining lands, so they had actual knowledge that taxpayer's land had no greater cash market value than did adjoining lands; the board and the assessor, notwithstanding this knowledge, failed, neglected, and refused to assess taxpayer's land at the same or a lower figure than that of adjoining lands; these facts were so clear and irrefutable that reasonable minds could not differ thereon (our emphasis) and had the board and the assessor employed the discretion and logic of which they were capable, taxpayer's land would not have a greater assessed valuation than adjoining land thereby in effect making taxpayer's land have a higher cash market value not on an equal basis with adjoining lands; the action of the board and the assessor was so capricious, arbitrary, and oppressive as to amount to fraud; these facts were shown by unrefuted and irrefutable sworn testimony (our emphasis) in a hearing before the board and on appeal to the commission, but both failed, neglected, and refused to exercise such discretion, reasoning and logic as was their legal duty to exercise, which discretion would have led them to the inescapable conclusion that the assessed valuation of taxpayer's land was too high; their action was so oppressive, capricious and arbitrary as to amount to fraud and constituted a planned and unconscionable discrimination against the taxpayer by placing an undue tax burden on him which caused him to pay more than his just and proportionate share of taxes in Morris county; such misfeasance, malfeasance, refusal to perform legal duties, etc., were made with the design of injuring and discriminating against the taxpayer.
The petition further alleged that taxpayer's land is pasture, not tillable, and of less value than certain described adjoining land, part of which is good tillable bottom land that has a cash market equal to twice that of the taxpayer's land and yet it was assessed at a lower cash value. These facts were known to both the board and the commission and were unrefuted and irrefutable. The same facts were true of other lands not directly adjoining in the same taxing unit as were true of the adjoining lands.
It was further alleged that appeals were made to the county board of equalization in May, 1954, and May, 1955, which board's conduct was so oppressive, arbitrary and capricious as to amount to fraud in that it was contrary to indisputable evidence; the denial of relief was appealed to the commission as a board of equalization on June 10, 1955, hearing was had on August 11, 1955, and said action was still pending; both equalization boards, the assessor, and the treasurer acted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. McHenry
...and courts will not interfere so as to usurp the board's function or substitute their judgment for that of the board. (Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 815, 308 P.2d 154; Hitch Land & Cattle Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Kan. 357, 361, 295 P.2d 'Before the courts will interfere t......
-
Board of County Com'rs of Shawnee County v. Brookover
...and courts will not interfere so as to usurp the board's function or substitute their judgment for that of the board. (Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 815, 308 P.2d 154; Hitch Land & Cattle Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 179 Kan. 357, 361, 295 P.2d Before the courts will interfere th......
-
Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. State Commission of Revenue and Taxation
...County Commissioners, 175 Kan. 770, 267 P.2d 523; Rural High School District No. 3, v. Baker, 176 Kan. 647, 272 P.2d 1073; Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 308 P.2d 154; V. S. Dicarlo Masonry Co. v. Higgins, 178 Kan. 222, 284 P.2d 640; Fleming v. Ferguson, 161 Kan. 562, 171 P.2d It is intere......
-
Offen v. City of Topeka
...of usurped authority, he may maintain an action for injunctive relief. Dreyer v. Siler, 180 Kan. 765, 308 P.2d 127; Anderson v. Dunn, 180 Kan. 811, 815, 308 P.2d 154. In State v. Boicourt Hunting Ass'n, 177 Kan. 637, 645, 282 P.2d 395, 401, we 'Heretofore we have stated that common-law reme......