First Nat. Bank of Weiser v. Washington County

• Decision Date: 27 November 1909
• Citation: 17 Idaho 306,105 P. 1053
• Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WEISER et al., Respondents, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY et al., Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

105 P. 1053

17 Idaho 306

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WEISER et al., Respondents, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 27, 1909

TAXATION-POWER OF ASSESSOR-NOTICE TO TAXPAYER-RAISE ON VALUATION OF BANK STOCK-WAIVER OF NOTICE-DEDUCTIONS FROM VALUATION OF STOCK-WHO MUST CLAIM DEDUCTIONS-TAXING NATIONAL BANK STOCK.

1. The county assessor has no power or authority to bind the county or its board of equalization by any agreement he may make or enter into with the taxpayer as to the valuation to be placed upon any specific property, or the waiver of deductions and exemptions. His duties are prescribed by law, and the taxpayer is chargeable with notice of the scope of his authority and the power with which he is invested and the limitations thereof. He is required to assess all the taxable property of his county at its "full cash value," and has no authority to assess it otherwise.

2. Under the provisions of sec. 1692, Rev. Codes, the county commissioners of each county are required to meet on the second Monday in July, in each year, as a board of equalization for the purpose of examining the assessment-roll and equalizing the assessment of property throughout the county, and enforcing and compelling the assessment of property and raising or causing to be raised any assessment of property which, in the judgment of the board, has not been assessed at a fair cash value. No special, separate, or personal notice of this meeting is required to be given to the taxpayer of any action proposed to be taken, but any raise, change or alteration in the assessment of the property of any taxpayer amounts only to a proposal by the board that such property should be so raised, or the assessment changed or altered, and notice thereof is thereafter given by the clerk in conformity with the provisions of sec 1699, Rev. Codes, of the time and place when and where the taxpayer may be heard to object and protest against the proposed raise, change, or alteration.

3. Under the provisions of sec. 1701, Rev. Codes, the board is required to again meet as a board of equalization on the fourth Monday of July, in each year, for the purpose of hearing the objections that may be made by any party whose assessment it has proposed to change, alter, or modify; and it is at such meeting that the order is made final and that the change is authorized to be entered upon the assessment-roll, in conformity with the requirements of sec 1700, Rev. Codes.

4. Where the board of equalization has made an order proposing a raise on the valuation of any specific property, and the person against whom such property is assessed thereafter appears at the time and place fixed for the hearing on such proposed change and protests against the same and submits his evidence, he thereby waives the service of notice and cannot thereafter be heard to object to the action of the board on the ground that he was not served with notice.

5. The deduction allowed to the taxpayer on account of unsecured debts, due to bona fide residents of this state as provided for and treated of in secs. 1682, 1683, and 1685, Rev. Codes is a personal right and privilege accorded the taxpayer and must be claimed by the taxpayer himself.

6. Under the provisions of secs. 1682, 1683, and 1685, Rev Codes, together with the form of list incorporated in sec. 1685, and made a part thereof, the shares of stock in national and state banks are classed along with "unsecured, solvent debts" due from others to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is accordingly entitled to a deduction therefrom of his "unsecured debts due to bona fide residents of this state."

7. One claiming the right to deduct unsecured debts must personally waive the right to plead the bar of the statute of limitations against any of the claims listed and for which he claims a deduction.

8. The owner of bank stock is not entitled to a proportionate or corresponding reduction in valuation thereof for the purpose of taxation on account of any of the capital, surplus, or undivided profits of such bank being deposited in any bank or banks outside of the state.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Weiser and its stockholders to review the action of the board of equalization of Washington county ordering certain property assessed against the bank and in also ordering a raise in the valuation of the capital stock of the bank as the same had been assessed against the stockholders. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendants appeal. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part. Cause remanded, with direction. Costs awarded in favor of appellant. Petition for rehearing denied.

Harris & Smith, and Richards & Haga, for Appellants.

Respondents are held to a knowledge of the meeting of the board of equalization on the second Monday of July of each year for the equalization of assessments, regardless of any notice, for such is the statutory provision, sec. 1692, Rev. Codes. (Inland Lumber Co. v. Thompson, 11 Idaho 520, 114 Am. St. 274, 83 P. 933.) If a party appear in a suit or proceeding, he thereby cures or waives whatever defects may exist in the original process itself necessary to bring a party into court, or whatever irregularity may have occurred in the service of such process. (Moore v. Koubly, 1 Idaho 58; Godfrey v. Douglass Co., 28 Ore. 446, 43 P. 174; Hayes v. Shattuck, 21 Cal. 52; 4 Cent. Dig., col. 2817, and cases cited.)

The shares in national banks are taxed at their actual value as affected by the surplus and undivided profits, and this must be without regard to whether such surplus and undivided profits are in this state or out of this state, so long as they affect the value of such shares. (Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 10 S.Ct. 324, 33 L. ed. 775; Bank Tax Cases, 70 U.S. 387, 18 L. ed. 229; First Nat. Bank v. Farwell, 7 F. 518, 10 Biss. 270.)

To entitle a shareholder to a deduction of his individual indebtedness from the value of his stock, he must make the necessary claim provided for in paragraph 6 of sec. 1682, Rev. Codes of Idaho. (Williams v. Weaver, 100 U.S. 547, 25 L. ed. 709; Stanley v. Albany Co., 121 U.S. 535, 7 S.Ct. 1234, 30 L. ed. 1000; Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U.S. 305, 26 L. ed. 1044.)

The respondent had the right to appear before the board and show that such increase or "raise" in his assessment should not be made. We are not authorized to presume that said order was made without evidence. The board had jurisdiction to make said order. That is the only question before us for determination. (Murphy v. Board, 6 Idaho 749, 59 P. 715.) The record does not show what evidence was before the board, but we must presume that the board had proper evidence before it on which to base its decision. (Becker v. Malheur Co., 24 Ore. 217, 33 P. 544; Godfrey v. Douglass County, 28 Ore. 446, 43 P. 174.)

The scope of this review is confined to the question whether the board of equalization had jurisdiction and proceeded regularly. (Sec. 4968, Rev. Codes; Smith v. City of Portland, 25 Ore. 297, 35 P. 666; McConnell v. State Board, 11 Idaho 662, 83 P. 494; 4 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 287; 6 Cyc. 832.) The writ of review is a statutory remedy. The limitations and the authority for its issuance in any particular case must be sought for and found in the statutes. (McConnell v. Board, supra; Adelman v. Pierce, 6 Idaho 294, 55 P. 658.)

The writ is only granted when there is no appeal or no plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and when some tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon such tribunal, board or officer. (Sec. 4962, Rev. Codes; Rogers v. Hayes, 3 Idaho 598, 32 P. 259; Dahlstrom v. Portland Min. Co., 12 Idaho 87, 85 P. 916.)

Lot L. Feltham, for Respondents.

Secs. 28, 29, 32 and 43 of the revenue act of 1901 clearly point out the statutory right to offset debts against stocks in banks. Besides this, there is abundant authority to support the contention that "other moneyed capital" includes all unsecured notes, bonds, choses in action, loans on account, etc. (People v. Weaver, 100 U.S. 543, 25 L. ed. 705; Pelton v. Com. Nat. Bk., 101 U.S. 143, 25 L. ed. 901; Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 10 S.Ct. 324, 33 L. ed. 775; Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U.S. 60, 8 S.Ct. 772, 31 L. ed. 689; First Nat. Bk. v. Chapman, 173 U.S. 205, 19 S.Ct. 407, 43 L. ed. 669.)

The property of the bank, consisting of its money, furniture, fixtures, and notes are its property, and the stock held by the stockholders is but the paper representative of said property. To assess the stock and also assess any part of the property, except the real estate, is to double assess the association. In this respect the assessment made by the board was void and without jurisdiction. (City and County of San Francisco v. Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bk., 92 F. 273.)

If stocks in a national bank are not credits, against which the respective stockholders may offset their debts due to bona fide residents of Idaho, then the entire assessment against said stock is illegal and void, because in such case a clear discrimination would be made against the owners of national bank shares and in favor of the owners of credits arising from other moneyed capital. (Sec. 5219, U. S. Rev. Stat.; Miller v. Heilbron, 58 Cal. 133; Dodge v. Nevada Nat. Bk., 109 F. 727, 48 C. C. A. 626; McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 20, 47 P. 779, 45 L. R. A. 737; Wasson v. First Nat. Bk., 107 Ind. 217, 8 N.E. 97; First Nat. Bank of Albia v. City Council, 86 Iowa 37, 52 N.W. 334; Bressler v. Wayne Co., 25 Neb. 473, 41 N.W. 356.)

The article...