Dundy v. Board of Com'rs of Richardson County
| Decision Date | 22 April 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 565,8 Neb. 508 |
| Parties | ELMER S. DUNDY, APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RICHARDSON COUNTY, APPELLEE |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal by plaintiff from a decree rendered in the district court for Richardson county, WEAVER, J., presiding. The cause was tried upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts, and having been heard here on the last day of the present term, was by stipulation of the parties submitted to the court, and the decision thereon filed and decree entered in vacation, April 22, 1879.
The agreed statement of facts is as follows:
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that this cause shall be fully submitted to and decided by the court on the pleadings filed herein, and the following statement of facts, admitted to be true, either party reserving the right to appeal to the supreme court for the purpose of reviewing or correcting such decree as may be rendered by the district court.
It is admitted that said plaintiff was at the time of bringing this suit, and for four years previous thereto, and yet is, the owner in fee of all the land described in plaintiff's bill, except the undivided fourth part of the piece described as lot six, and at the time the suit was brought, and taxes were levied, the said undivided fourth part of said lot belonged to J. E. Burbank, and that the assessor who assessed the same valued and assessed the lands at the sums stated in the bill for the years 1876 and 1877, and that the quantity of the land is correctly stated. That the said lands are described by their well known and recognized legal subdivisions, and have been so recognized in and by the assessments for several years last past.
That for the year 1877 the assessor made an assessment against the plaintiff's land, described as a part of section No eleven, town one, range No. sixteen, as shown in said bill, a copy of which is hereto attached, showing the present condition of said assessment as appears by the assessment roll.
That the county commissioners, as a board of equalization, met on the sixteenth of April, 1877, and on the twenty-seventh day of the same month the said board of equalization added to the assessed value of all of said lands the further sum of twenty-two per cent, and added that amount to the taxable value of said lands, as stated in plaintiff's bill, and that the plaintiff had no notice whatever of any such intention on the part of said board until after such assessment was raised. That the said order, so made by said board, remains matter of record and unrevoked.
That the said lands were assessed for the year 1876, at the prices and sums stated in the bill, and that on the seventeenth of April, 1876, the commissioners met as a board of equalization, and on the twenty-first day of the same month the said board made an order directing eighteen per cent to be added to the said assessment, which was done, which is matter of record, and remains unreversed and unrevoked, and the taxes were levied on all of said land, including the eighteen per cent so added as aforesaid as stated in said bill, no notice of which was given to plaintiff, nor of any intention so to do.
That on the day of July, 1876, the county commissioners levied taxes on said lands, including the raised assessments, at the rate stated in the bill, and that the taxes were made out and placed in the hands of the treasurer for collection, and that the treasurer has been seeking to collect the same as stated in the bill.
That the taxes levied on said land for the year 1876 are correct as stated in the bill.
That the plat hereto attached, showing location and description of land described in the bill, is correct.
That the assessments complained of have in no respect been corrected, and the taxes levied thereon will be enforced unless the treasurer of said county shall be restrained from proceeding therefor.
That the assessor for 1877 assessed the improvements on land of said plaintiff in section No. eleven, and on the other improved lands in said precinct, a part of which is shown by the copy of one page of the assessment roll hereto attached and that after the said roll was returned into the clerk's office, and there filed, the said commissioners erased from the roll all the assessments on such improvements, except in the three instances stated in the bill, and that no change has since been made thereon.
That lots two and five, in section twenty-three, town one, are not contiguous, but are assessed together.
That lots five and six, section twenty-two, were assessed and taxed together, for the year 1876, and for the sum named as stated in the bill.
That lots two and five, section twenty-three, are not contiguous but are assessed and taxed together for the amount, and as stated in the bill.
Reversed.
Isham Reavis (John L. Webster with him) for appellant, cited South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo County, 7 Neb. 253. Hamlin v. Meadville, 6 Neb. 235.
Frank Martin, for appellee.
1. We may safely admit that where the board proceeds as a board of revisory assessors to change individual valuations, they should give the individual some notice, in order that he may be present and protect his interests. We think our statute gives the board--First. The general powers of ordinary boards of equalization, viz.: The power to equalize the whole assessment of the county by raising or lowering different political or general geographical portions or subdivisions of the county so as to make them as near equal as may be. And, Second. In addition to such ordinary and general powers it gives the board other special powers in regard to individual cases. We contend that the two powers are distinct and independent, and governed by entirely different rules. The board, in the two cases reported, were acting under their special powers, but in this case were acting under their general powers, and sought to do what the law authorized them to do, viz.: increase the valuation a certain per cent on one portion of the county, and decrease a certain per cent on another. For that general purpose the statute is notice to all the world of the time and place of the meeting of the board, and all persons are bound to take notice of it. Nixon v. Ruple, 30 N. J. Law, 60. Hambleton v. Dempsey & Co., 20 Ohio 168. Kelley v. Carson & Richardson, 8 Wis. 182.
2. In regard to the court house bond tax, we say the complainant is estopped from questioning the validity of the law under which they were issued. Ferguson, etc., v. Landrom, etc., 5 Bush, Ky., 241. Cooley on Taxation, 573, and cases there cited.
On the second day of July, 1877, the plaintiff filed a petition in the district court of Richardson county, alleging that he is the owner in fee of 60 acres in the south-east quarter of section eleven, town one, and range sixteen, which in the year 1877 was assessed at the sum of $ 900. That he is also the owner of the undivided three-fourths of lot six, in section twenty-two, town one, and range sixteen, containing about 30 acres, which in that year was assessed at $ 180; that he is also the owner of lot five, in section twenty-two, town one, range sixteen, containing 32.42 acres which was assessed at the sum of $ 280. That he is also the owner of lot two, section twenty-three, town one, range sixteen. That he is also the owner of lot five, section twenty-three, town one, range sixteen, containing 25 acres, lots two and five being assessed together at the sum of $ 444. That he is also the owner of lot one, in section twenty-four, town one, range sixteen, containing about 31 acres, assessed at the sum of $ 186. That he is also the owner of the north half of the north-east quarter of section thirty-two, in town one, range sixteen, containing 80 acres, assessed at $ 452. That all of the above described lands, except the first, are legal subdivisions as made by the government surveys.
The petition also alleges "that after the assessment of said lands had been made by the assessor of said precinct for the year 1877, the assessment roll was duly returned to the county clerk's office of said county, where the same now remains as a part of the records of said county; that the assessor of the said precinct, or the board of county commissioners, or one of them, or some other person by their direction * * undertook to value and assess the improvements on the lands first above described, and assessed the same separately, and detached from the land, at the sum of $ 1500, which now stands upon the assessment roll against the plaintiff."
The petition also alleges that afterwards the county commissioners caused the assessment for improvements to be stricken from the assessment roll, excepting upon the plaintiff's land and lands owned by Charles Steele and one Shack, and that no other assessments of improvements were made upon any lands in the county, although there were many and valuable improvements on the cultivated lands throughout all portions of the county.
The petition also alleges that on the sixteenth day of April 1877, the county commissioners of said county met as a board of equalization and continued their sessions until the twenty-seventh of that month, when they "unlawfully and wrongfully added 22 per cent, and ordered 22 per cent to be added to the assessment and ascertained valuation of the land before described, and also on all the real estate outside of 'city property' in said Falls City precinct; that the said assessment so made and returned by the assessor was raised and increased by the said commissioners at the rate of 22 per cent in violation of law, without their having any sort of lawful evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dundy v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Richardson Cnty.
...8 Neb. 5081 N.W. 565ELMER S. DUNDY, APPELLANT,v.THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RICHARDSON COUNTY, APPELLEE.Supreme Court of Nebraska.Filed April 22, ... ...