Board of Com'rs of Garfield County v. Field

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HARDY, J.
• Citation: Board of Com'rs of Garfield County v. Field, 162 P. 733, 63 Okla. 80, 1916 OK 533 (Okla. 1916)
• Decision Date: 09 May 1916
• Docket Number: 6212.
• Parties: BOARD OF COM'RS OF GARFIELD COUNTY ET AL. v. FIELD ET AL.

162 P. 733

63 Okla. 80, 1916 OK 533

BOARD OF COM'RS OF GARFIELD COUNTY ET AL. v. FIELD ET AL.

No. 6212.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

May 9, 1916

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1917.

Syllabus by the Court.

One D had been appointed assessor of the city of Enid and his appointment confirmed. D. thereafter appointed J. deputy assessor, who procured from certain property owners of the city lists of their taxable property, which lists were signed by the owners and delivered to said J., who administered the proper oath to the persons listing said property and returned said lists which were duly filed. Held, that assessments made in the manner stated did not render the tax proceedings void so as to entitle the property owner to relief therefrom by injunction.

Until the contrary is made to appear the law presumes that public officers have discharged the duties which are imposed upon them by law.

The requirement that the assessor make and attach to the assessment roll an affidavit as set out in section 7326, Rev Laws 1910, is directory, and the failure of the assessor to attach said oath to the assessment roll is an irregularity that will not render the tax illegal in an injunction proceeding.

Whenever the statutes of a state provide a mode by which appeals may be taken from the assessment or equalization of property that remedy is exclusive, and equitable remedies cannot be resorted to.

Error from District Court, Garfield County; James W. Steen, Judge.

Action for injunction by R. A. Field and others against the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Okl., and Ed B Weatherly, as County Treasurer. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed, and cause dismissed.

W. W. Sutton, Co. Atty., and H. Blasdel, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Enid, for plaintiffs in error.

E. E. Blake, of Oklahoma City, and W. O. Cromwell, of Enid, for defendants in error.

HARDY J.

From a judgment of the district court of Garfield county enjoining the collection of certain taxes assessed against properties of plaintiffs for the year 1911, defendants prosecute this appeal.

The trial court found that no assessment or valuation of the property described in plaintiffs' petition was made for the year 1911, for the purposes of taxation, and that no assessment roll was made and authenticated for said year, including said properties, and that the pretended tax was in excess of the fair cash value of the properties owned and possessed by plaintiffs, estimated at the price it would bring at a voluntary sale in the name of the owner on the 1st day of March, 1911; and further found that no rate of taxation to be charged and extended against said plaintiffs on account of their ownership of said properties was ascertained and certified by the authorities, as required by law. The judgment is challenged on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of said action; that said judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law; and that plaintiffs had a plain and adequate remedy at law.

The plaintiffs, who are the defendants in error here, say that there is no question of equalization, and no question of valuation or of abatement or reduction of assessments in this case; the question urged by them being:

"Does the court in this state have jurisdiction to determine when a tax charge is legal, and can it prevent the clouding of title by stopping void proceedings?"

And throughout their brief the judgment of the trial court is upheld on the ground that there was no assessment of plaintiffs' properties, and no rate of taxation ascertained and certified, and therefore that the entire proceedings were void and the taxing officials without jurisdiction in the premises.

The procedure in force at the time these various steps were taken (section 7366, Rev. Laws 1910) provided that after property had been assessed the township board of equalization should meet on the third Monday of April of each year to examine the assessment rolls and to hear complaints of all persons aggrieved by their assessments, and to correct, equalize, and adjust said assessments by increasing or decreasing individual assessments or the aggregate assessments of any city, town, or township; and from the action of which board an appeal might be taken to the board of county commissioners, and from the decision of the county commissioners an appeal might be taken to the county court of the county in which the property was located. And section 7370 is as follows:

"The proceedings before the board of equalization and appeals therefrom shall be the sole method by which assessments or equalizations shall be corrected or taxes abated. Equitable remedies shall be resorted to only where the aggrieved party has no taxable property within the tax district of which complaint is made."

This was the law in force at the time, and in a number of decisions it has been held that where a remedy is provided by which appeals may be taken from the assessment or equalization of property, that remedy is exclusive, and equitable remedies cannot be resorted to. Williams, Co. Clk., v. Garfield Ex. Bank, 38 Okl. 539, 134 P. 863; Carrico et al. v. Crocker et al., 38 Okl. 440, 133 P. 181; Hopper et al. v. Oklahoma County, 43 Okl. 288, 143 P. 4, L. R. A. 1915B, 875; Thompson et al. v. Brady et al., 42 Okl. 807, 143 P. 6; Board of Com'rs v. Tinklepaugh, 152 P. 1119. This proposition is not controverted, but it is said when the court found that no assessment or valuation of the plaintiffs' property was made for the purposes of taxation for the fiscal year 1911, and no rate of taxation was ascertained and certified by the authorities as required by law, the statutes relied upon could have no application for the reason that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction; and, the board of equalization being without jurisdiction, an appeal would not lie from any action of theirs in the premises.

The evidence discloses that one Charles Dangerfield was appointed assessor of the city of Enid on the 31st day of December 1909, that his appointment was confirmed by the city commissioners, and that he thereafter appointed one J. S. Jacobs as deputy assessor. By agreement of the parties hereto a single assessment list covering the properties of one of the plaintiffs was offered in evidence as an example of the manner in which the properties of the various plaintiffs had been assessed. The list in question shows that the agent of the owner had listed said property with the deputy assessor and made the affidavit thereto before said deputy, and the jurat or oath to be administered by the assessor was signed by said deputy with the letters "J. S. J.," being the initials of said Jacobs. This being introduced as an example of the manner in which lists were taken and returned, we assume that the lists embracing the property of all the plaintiffs was executed in like manner,...