First Nat. Bank v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 06 May 1895 |
| Citation | 40 P. 175,16 Mont. 135 |
| Parties | FIRST NAT. BANK OF MISSOULA v. BAILEY, Treasurer. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
On rehearing. Denied.
For former report, see 39 P. 83.
Marshall & Corbett, for appellant.
Henri J. Haskell, Atty. Gen., J. M. Dixon, and J. G. Denny, for respondent.
Counsel in their able argument and brief in support of the petition for a rehearing in this case, contend that the assessor changed or increased the assessment list returned by appellant without notice, and that such action on the part of the assessor was void, as to such increase in the assessment and further that, notwithstanding this contention was not relied on in the court below or in this court on the original hearing, said contention may be presented on this petition for rehearing, as it is germane to the issues presented by the pleadings. The list of property returned to the assessor is as follows:
| Lots 6 and 7, block 1, Old Town" site addition | 1,000 00 |
| Lot 19, block 21, Higgins addition | 2,000 00 |
| Improvements on same ................. | 2,000 00 |
| 78x118 feet, corner Front street and Higgins avenue ............... | 10,000 00 |
| Improvements on same ................ | 40,000 00 |
| Capital stock, 1,500 shares ........ | 150,000 00 |
| Surplus and undivided profits ...... | 320,000 00 |
| ---------- | |
| Less real estate and improvements ... | 55,000 00 |
| ---------- | |
| Less one"third ..................... | 156,660 00 |
| ---------- |
From an examination of this list, we think it clearly appears that the appellant fixed the real value of its property listed and returned to the assessor at $470,000, and not at $313,340, as claimed now for the first time. The appellant claimed, it is true, a deduction of one-third the value thereof, amounting to $156,660, as shown by said list. But did the claiming this deduction for assessment purposes change in any way the value of said property? The appellant was claiming something the law does not warrant, and something the law does not authorize the assessor to grant. The law requires the assessor to assess property "at its full cash value." Act Concerning Revenue (Laws 1891, p. 75, § 5). The assessor did not change, alter, or increase in any way whatever appellant's assessment list. It must be conceded that, when appellant returned its assessment list, it did not fix any fancy value...
To continue reading
Request your trial