Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10113

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation80 S.D. 617,129 N.W.2d 532
PartiesCHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce GILLIS, as Director of Taxation of South Dakota, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Decision Date06 July 1964
Docket NumberNo. 10113

Page 532

129 N.W.2d 532
80 S.D. 617
CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Bruce GILLIS, as Director of Taxation of South Dakota, et
al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. 10113.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
July 6, 1964.

Page 533

[80 S.D. 619] Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., John P. Dewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendants and respondents.

ROBERTS, Judge.

This action for declaratory judgment was brought in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County by the Chicago and North Western Railway Company against the Commissioner of Revenue, the members of the State Board of Equalization, and the counties of Lincoln, Turner and McCook and their auditors and treasurers as representatives of all the counties in which the plaintiff had operating property during the year 1962. The action is grounded on the claim that the assessment of plaintiff's property for that year was in excess of its actual value and that the taxable value upon which levies were made and applied was discriminatory because the resulting tax was proportionately and relatively greater than that of owners of other property. The prayer in the complaint was that defendants be mandatorily directed to apply levies for property taxation for the year 1962 against 60 percent of the actual value of the plaintiff's property as finally ascertained and in the same manner as the property of other taxpayers. The answer of the defendants to the complaint, so far as necessary to consider, was that by reason of a prior action and the adjudication therein the rights of the parties to the present action were finally and conclusively determined and that plaintiff is barred from maintaining the herein action. The motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, the court being of the opinion that the prior adjudication was res judicata and a bar to the prosecution of the present action.

[80 S.D. 620] The question presented is whether the decision of this court in Chicago and North Western Railway Co. v. Gillis, S.D., 118 N.W.2d 316, is res judicata since it involved the evaluation of the entire operating property of the plaintiff for the year 1962 by the defendants, the Commissioner of Revenue and the State Board of Equalization. In a companion case, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. Co. v. Gillis, S.D., 118 N.W.2d 313, we held that under the provisions of the statute (SDC 1960 Supp. 57.0334) providing that 'All property shall be assessed at its true and full value in money but only sixty per cent of such assessed value shall be taken and considered as the taxable value' the 60 percent factor is applicable to railway operating properties. In the prior decision between the parties in the pending action, this court while it recognized the applicability of the 60 percent factor held that plaintiff railroad was not entitled to relief since there was no evidence showing that its operating property was assigned a taxable value in excess of 60 percent of its true and full value.

The Commissioner of Revenue is required in July of each year to assess the operating property of each railroad in the state at its true and full value. The Commissioner in the valuation of the property of a railroad must first determine the value of the entire system and in so doing take into consideration the market price of its stocks and bonds and the net operating income of the system during the five calendar years preceding the assessment and other material information. The Commissioner must then decide the portion of the operating property that should be allocated to this state in arriving at the equalized assessment. SDC 57.1305. The statute does not prescribe a definite formula or rule for ascertaining the value of the operating property of a railroad. If evaluation includes consideration of elements specifically required

Page 534

by statute, the Commissioner of Revenue may follow any method by which a fair and just determination of values may be reached. Bailey v. Megan, 8 Cir., 102 F.2d 651.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Krebs v. Weber, No. 20961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 29, 2000
    ...rights as distinguished from mere matters of practice, procedure and jurisdiction." Chicago & NorthWestern Railway Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532, 535 (1964) (citation [¶ 28.] Because Krebs was deprived of his statutory right to effective assistance of habeas counsel, h......
  • Dakota, Mn & E. R. v. Acuity, No. 23601.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 9, 2006
    ...that might have been raised in the first action. Adam v. Adam, 254 N.W.2d 123, 130 (S.D.1977)(citing Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 622, 129 N.W.2d 532, 534 (1964)). A judgment which bars a second action upon the same claim extends not only to every matter offered and re......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1967
    ...& N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 57, 118 N.W.2d 316. See also Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 [82 S.D. 475] S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532 where the court held this action challenging the 1962 assessment was barred by the prior mandamus judgment. The record here now (Exhibit P 27 A)......
  • Clay v. Weber, No. 24247.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 2, 2007
    ...505 F.2d at 1239; Ramsey Tp., McCook County v. Lake, 68 S.D. 67, 298 N.W. 356 (1941); Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532 (1964). If, however, the second action is based upon a different claim or demand, the prior judgment precludes further considerat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Krebs v. Weber, No. 20961
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 29, 2000
    ...rights as distinguished from mere matters of practice, procedure and jurisdiction." Chicago & NorthWestern Railway Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532, 535 (1964) (citation [¶ 28.] Because Krebs was deprived of his statutory right to effective assistance of habeas counsel, h......
  • Dakota, Mn & E. R. v. Acuity, No. 23601.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 9, 2006
    ...that might have been raised in the first action. Adam v. Adam, 254 N.W.2d 123, 130 (S.D.1977)(citing Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 622, 129 N.W.2d 532, 534 (1964)). A judgment which bars a second action upon the same claim extends not only to every matter offered and re......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1967
    ...& N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 57, 118 N.W.2d 316. See also Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, 80 [82 S.D. 475] S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532 where the court held this action challenging the 1962 assessment was barred by the prior mandamus judgment. The record here now (Exhibit P 27 A)......
  • Clay v. Weber, No. 24247.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 2, 2007
    ...505 F.2d at 1239; Ramsey Tp., McCook County v. Lake, 68 S.D. 67, 298 N.W. 356 (1941); Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. v. Gillis, 80 S.D. 617, 129 N.W.2d 532 (1964). If, however, the second action is based upon a different claim or demand, the prior judgment precludes further considerat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT