Bardrick v. Dillon
| Citation | 7 Okla. 535,54 P. 785,1898 OK 30 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Decision Date | 30 July 1898 |
| Parties | E. E. BARDRICK et al v. J. H. DILLON et al. |
¶0 1. TAXATION--Equalization--Townships--Method. Our revenue laws authorize the county board of equalization to equalize the assessment rolls of the several townships in the County, but prescribe no method by which such equalization shall be accomplished. The word "equalize" is here used in its ordinary and common sense, and has no technical meaning. And where the law makes it the duty of the county board to equalize the assessment rolls, and prescribes no method to be adopted, the board may adopt any reasonable and just method; and if, on examination of the several rolls, the board should be of the opinion that some of the townships are assessed too low, and others represent an assessment of the true cash valuation of the assessed property, such board may adopt as a basis for equalization the assessment roll which, in their judgment, the most nearly represents a true cash valuation, and may add to or deduct from the other townships such per cent as will cause them to conform in valuation to the one adopted as a basis; and such method will be within the powers of the board to equalize the assessment rolls of the several townships, notwithstanding such action may either increase or decrease the aggregate valuation as shown by all the township returns.
2. ASSESSMENT--True Cash Value--Increase--Injunction. The law requires all property to be assessed on its true cash value, and the board of equalization, in exercising its powers of equalizing the various assessment rolls, has no authority to increase the valuation of the property of any individual in excess of its true cash value; and, if such excessive valuation results from such equalization, a court of equity will enjoin the tax levied on the excess, where the amount of tax due on the true cash valuation is paid or tendered before suit is brought.
3. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT--Revenues. A court will not cripple a municipal government by enjoining fits revenues on the uncertain and speculative allegation that the authorities will misapply the funds when collected. A court of equity can prevent such mischief at the proper time on application to enjoin such misappropriation.
4. COUNTY DEBT--Limitation. The bare allegation that the county board has fraudulently contracted liabilities in excess of the 4 per cent limit is not sufficient grounds upon which to enjoin the collection of a tax for general revenue purposes. It must be made to clearly appear, from the allegations of the petition, what the last assessed valuation of the county was prior to contracting such indebtedness, the purposes for which it was contracted, the total legal outstanding indebtedness of the county at the time such debt was created, the available assets of the county at the time, and that said revenues are not required to meet ordinary current expenses of the county.
Error from the District Court of Blaine County; before J. C. Tarsney, District Judge.
Petition by E. E. Bardrick and others against J. H. Dillon and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
P. S. Nagle and Seymour Foose, for plaintiff in error.
J. H. Campbell, County Attorney, for defendant in error.
¶1 A number of resident tax-payers of Cimarron township, in Blaine county, filed their petition in the district court of Blaine county against the county treasurer, sheriff, and board of county commissioners of Blaine county, to enjoin the collection of a portion of the taxes levied against them for the year 1895 in said county. After the filing of the petition, quite a number of the plaintiffs were given leave to dismiss, and they withdrew from the cause. The defendants demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief prayed for; and this demurrer was sustained, and cause dismissed. From this ruling and judgment the plaintiffs appeal to this court.
¶2 The petition alleges, in substance: That at the proper time for assessing property the plaintiffs, and each of them, furnished the assessor with a full and complete schedule of all his property subject to taxation or liable to be assessed, and valued to the assessor at its actual cash value. That the township assessor accepted such assessment lists, and each of them, and duly assessed all the property of each plaintiff at its true and actual cash value, and made correct and proper returns thereof to the township board of equalization. That at the proper time the township board met, and heard all persons who felt themselves aggrieved by their assessment, and no changes were made in their assessment and valuations as made and accepted by the assessor. That the assessor made his return to the county clerk of Blaine county, as required, and that the roll returned by him contained a schedule and list of all the property of each of the several plaintiffs, and that each and every item of property embraced in said returns and assessment roll was therein valued at its true and actual cash value. That the aggregate of the assessed valuation of all the property in said Cimarron township, as shown by the assessor's returns, was the sum of $ 30,108, which sum represented the cash value of all the assessable property in said township for that year. That the township and school boards met at the proper time, and made all the levies for township and school purposes severally required of them upon the assessed valuation as returned by the township assessor. That afterwards the board of county commissioners of Blaine county met as a board of equalization, and after examining the returns from the several townships, proceeded to equalize the assessment rolls returned from the several townships in said county. That there are thirteen municipal townships in said county, and that said board adopted the assessment returns of Homestead township as a basis upon which to equalize the various townships of the county, and ordered that assessments in the following townships to be raised as follows: Canadian township, 20 per cent.; Lincoln township, 40 per cent.; Logan township, 20 per cent.; Arapahoe township, 50 per cent. ; Dixon township, 30 per cent.; Wells township, 12 per cent.; Cantonment township, 50 per cent.; Seay township, 30 per cent.; Cimarron township, 40 per cent. That no changes were made in the townships of Watonga, Cedar Valley, Flynn, and Homestead. That the total returns as shown by the several township assessment rolls was $ 324,228, which, it is alleged, was the true cash value of the assessable property in Blaine county for the year 1895. That the aggregate assessed valuation of the county as shown by the equalized returns was $ 376,104, which sum is $ 51,826 in excess of the true cash value of all the property in Blaine county subject to taxation for the said year. It is then alleged that the action of the board of equalization in increasing the assessed valuation of the taxable property of said county was not actuated by a desire to arrive at and fix the true cash value of the property in said county for revenue purposes, but that said board had contracted a large amount of illegal and fraudulent indebtedness, which the ordinary revenues of the county, derived from a tax on the true cash value of the assessable property in the county, would not pay; and that the board, for the purpose of raising revenues to meet and pay said indebtedness, and for the purpose of avoiding and evading the limitations fixed by law upon the amount of liabilities they might create, fixed a false and fictitious value on said property, and increased said assessments for said purposes. It is also alleged that a large number of warrants had been issued in excess of the 4 per cent. limit, and the board was desirous of paying same. A number of other allegations are made in the petition, but, as they are not referred to in the brief of plaintiffs in error, we need not recite them here.
¶3 The demurrer admitted the truth of the allegations of the petition which were well pleaded. Conceding these allegations to be true, are the petitioners entitled to any relief? They alleged that they had each tendered to the county treasurer the amount of taxes levied for all purposes, calculated upon the assessments made by the township assessor and township board of equalization. We have not been favored with any brief by the defendants in error, and are not advised what their theory of the case is.
¶4 The first contention of counsel for plaintiffs in error is that in exercising its power of equalizing the assessments of the several townships the county board had no power to increase the aggregate assessment of the county as shown by the total of the several township returns. A similar question was before this court in the case of Wallace v. Bullen, 6 Okla. 17-757, 52 P. 954, relating to the powers of the territorial board of equalization, and was decided adversely to this contention. The power of taxation is a legislative power; and when the legislative department has prescribed the mode of determining valuations, assessing and levying taxes, and collecting revenues arising therefrom, the courts will not interfere with that power unless some constitutional or organic limitation or restriction on the legislative power has been violated or ignored. And when the legislature has adopted such mode, and provided for the officers who shall carry out the scheme of taxation, and prescribed their powers and duties, the courts will not enjoin the collection of the revenues as long as such officers have kept within their prescribed powers in the exercise of their duties.
¶5 There is no one subject that has received more attention at the hands of the courts than that of taxation in some of its various phases; and while a few settled rules pervade all the adjudicated cases, an exploration of the vast...
To continue reading
Request your trial