Beadle County v. Eveland

• Decision Date: 01 December 1920
• Docket Number: 4793
• Citation: 43 S.D. 447,180 N.W. 65
• Parties: BEADLE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, Clarence N. McIlvaine, F. R. Brumwell, Holland Wheeler, Warren Hurst, M. A. Alford, B. P. O. E. Lodge No. 44 Huron Lodge No. 26, A. F. & A. M., Syracuse Lodge No. 16 Knights of Pythias Building Association, Plaintiffs and, v. H. L. EVELAND, Hugh Smith, and H. C. Preston constituting the Tax Commission of the State of South Dakota, Defendants.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

43 S.D. 447

180 N.W. 65

BEADLE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, Clarence N. McIlvaine, F. R. Brumwell, Holland Wheeler, Warren Hurst, M. A. Alford, B. P. O. E. Lodge No. 44 Huron Lodge No. 26, A. F. & A. M., Syracuse Lodge No. 16 Knights of Pythias Building Association, Plaintiffs and,

v.

H. L. EVELAND, Hugh Smith, and H. C. Preston constituting the Tax Commission of the State of South Dakota, Defendants. South Dakota Supreme Court #4793--Writ denied Null & Royhl Attorneys for Plaintiff. Byron S. Payne, Attorney General Attorney for Defendant. Opinion filed December 1, 1920

WHITING, J.

Beadle county and numerous owners of property situated in the city of Huron, in said Beadle county, instituted this proceeding, seeking a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the defendants, as the tax commission of this state, to order a reassessment of the real property of Huron for the year 1920. It was the claim of plaintiffs that the equalization board of the city of Huron, when it came to equalize the assessment of the real property of said city, arbitrarily added large sums to the valuation of the real estate situate in the business section or "fire limits" of said city, while they added very little to the assessed valuation of the remaining real property of said city, thus apportioning the tax burdens as between this and the residence class of real property "upon a different basis and standard and by an arbitrary, unfounded, and unwarranted rule, in violation of the Constitution and laws" of this state, resulting in the assessment of "the property of plaintiffs and others similarly situated at an amount exceeding its actual value, whereas the residence property ... is assessed at not to exceed 40 per cent. of its value," and that this arbitrary and unequal assessment was made "knowingly and wilfully ... for the express purpose of casting a greater burden of taxation upon the owners of real property within said fire limits."

It appears that, upon ascertaining the total amount of the assessed valuation of the property of Huron, as returned by the assessor, the school board of said city was of the opinion that such amount was not large enough upon which there could be levied, under constitutional limitations, sufficient taxes to support the educational system of the city during the coming year. Thereupon the said school board urged the board of equalization to add some $1,500,000 to said assessment. This, of course, could only be done under their power as an equalization board. It appears that there was no objection made to an enlarged assessment, but a considerable number of the property owners asked that such increase be brought about by increasing the assessor's valuations proportionately throughout the city. It was understood by all parties interested that any increase should be placed only upon the real property without structures. Of course, it is beyond dispute that, if the assessor's valuations were equitable, so that there was left no ground for complaint as between property owners, any increase made by the equalization board should have retained the same proportionate values. Plaintiffs charged and sought to prove that the reason why the method requested by such property owners was not followed was because it was arbitrarily determined by the board of equalization to place some 80 per cent. of the increased burden upon the business property upon the pretext that the owners of residence property were not as well able to pay the additional taxes as were the owners of profit earning property. It appears that some members of said board did make suggestions that the owners of residence property should not be burdened with this extra tax because of lack of ability to pay same; but the members of the board contend that, when it came to the adding of this extra assessment, they determined that the property in the "fire limits" had not been assessed at as high a proportion of its value as that outside of said district, and that their sole aim, and the result reached by them, was the assessing...