Bank of Garnett v. Ferris

• Decision Date: 06 April 1895
• Citation: 39 P. 1042,55 Kan. 120
• Parties: THE BANK OF GARNETT v. JOHN W. FERRIS, as Sheriff of Anderson County, et al. THE BANK OF WESTPHALIA v. SAME. THE PEOPLE'S BANK OF COLONY v. SAME. THE BANK OF GREELEY v. SAME
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

39 P. 1042

55 Kan. 120

THE BANK OF GARNETT v. JOHN W. FERRIS, as Sheriff of Anderson County, et al.

THE BANK OF WESTPHALIA v. SAME.

THE PEOPLE'S BANK OF COLONY v. SAME.

THE BANK OF GREELEY v. SAME

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 6, 1895

Error from Anderson District Court.

SEPARATE actions by the Bank of Garnett, the Bank of Westphalia, the People's Bank of Colony, and the Bank of Greeley, against John W. Ferris, as sheriff of Anderson county, and others for an injunction. From an order in each case denying the application for a temporary writ, plaintiff in each case brings error. The opinion herein, filed April 6, 1895, states the facts.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

1. TAXES--Enjoining Collection. A party is not entitled to enjoin the collection of taxes on account of an intentional overvaluation of his property until he has paid or tendered so much of the taxes assessed against him as it can be readily seen he ought to pay.

2. COLLECTION, When not Restrained. The collection of taxes cannot be enjoined because of the failure of the treasurer to issue the tax warrant for the collection of such taxes at the particular time mentioned in the statute.

Rose & Roberts, and Johnson & Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

C. T. Richardson, for defendants in error.

JOHNSTON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

Each of the above-named banks brought an action against the sheriff, treasurer and the board of county commissioners of Anderson county, to enjoin the collection of taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed against the bank and its stockholders, and to prevent the seizure of property under tax warrants which had been issued for the collection of unpaid taxes assessed upon the stockholders for the years 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893. The principal objection to the validity of the tax, as set forth in the petitions, was that in the month of March of each of those years the various trustees of the townships of Anderson county met in the office of the county clerk for the purpose of fixing a basis of valuation for the assessment of property in that county, and that an agreement was made among them that they would assess personal property at 50 per cent. of its actual value, but that they would only assess real estate at 25 per cent. of what they found its actual value to be. It is alleged that this was intentionally and deliberately done for the purpose of discriminating between the different classes of property and property-owners, and that in accordance with the agreement made, real estate was assessed for each of these years at only 25 per cent. of its value, while personal property, including the bank stock of the plaintiffs, was assessed at 50 per cent. of its actual value. There was also an allegation that the assessors had refused to permit the stockholders to deduct their indebtedness from the value of the stock which they held, but there having been a prior adverse decision by this court, that branch of the case has been abandoned. (Dutton v. National Bank, 53 Kan. 440, 36 P. 719.) Another ground of invalidity alleged was that the tax warrants were issued at a time not authorized by statute, and for that reason the levy of the same should be enjoined. The district judge denied the application for a temporary injunction in each of the cases, and of these orders plaintiffs complain.

Accepting the averments of the petition to be true, the action of the taxing officers was a plain disregard of duty and a flagrant violation of the statute. It was an intentional discrimination by which an excessive valuation was placed upon one kind of property, and from the owners of the same there was unjustly exacted double the rate and amount of taxes required from the owners of the other kind of property. It is contended that a discriminating and illegal tax of this character cannot be enjoined, but in a case just decided it has been held that injunction is a proper remedy, and that a party who has tendered all of the state taxes, and his just share of the county and other local taxes, is entitled to have enjoined the collection of the illegal excess. (C B. & Q. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Atchison, Co., 54 Kan. 781.) The reasons for this ruling are so clearly and fully stated by the chief justice, that no further discussion is required. The application of the rule of that case, however, does not justify a reversal...