First Nat. Bank v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 11 February 1895
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF MISSOULA v. BAILEY, County Treasurer. [1]
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

39 P. 83

15 Mont. 301

FIRST NAT. BANK OF MISSOULA v. BAILEY, County Treasurer. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Montana

February 11, 1895

Appeal from district court, Missoula county; Frank H. Woody, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Missoula against D. J. Bailey treasurer of Missoula county. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Marshall & Corbett, for appellant.

J. M Dixon, H. J. Haskell, Ella L. Knowles, and J. G. Denny, for respondent.

PEMBERTON C.J.

(after stating the facts). The verified statement which plaintiff claims in its complaint it furnished the assessor to aid him in ascertaining the number of shares of the stock of the bank, and in fixing the value at which the same should be assessed to the individual shareholders, is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and made part of the pleading. This paper is an assessment list, such as is required by law to be made out and returned to the assessor. It is printed, and on the back thereof is this indorsement: "Assessment list of property subject to taxation, owned, claimed, or in possession or control of First National Bank at 12 m., on the first Monday of March, 1893;" and is sworn to by the cashier of the plaintiff bank. This list contains a list of the real estate, improvements thereon, capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits, with the amounts and value of all of said property, with a deduction of onethird of the value thereof claimed by the cashier. From an inspection of this tax list, which is a part of the complaint, we think it cannot be held that it is simply a "verified statement," to aid the assessor in assessing the individual shareholders, as claimed by plaintiff.

Section 6 of the revenue law, approved March 6, 1891, is as follows:

"Sec. 6. The stockholders in every bank or banking association organized under the authority of this state or the United States, must be assessed and taxed on the value of their shares of stock therein, in the county, town, city or district where such bank or banking association is located, and not elsewhere, whether such stockholders reside in such place or not. To aid the assessor in determining the value of such shares of stock, the cashier or other accounting officer of every such bank must furnish a verified statement to the assessor, showing the amount and number of shares of the capital stock of each bank, the amount of its surplus or reserve fund, the amount of investments in real estate, which real estate must be assessed and taxed as other real estate."

It may be conceded that the assessment of the capital stock of the bank to and as the property thereof was unauthorized in this case, under said section. The bank had a right to object to this assessment. But it appears that it returned in its list of property for taxation its capital stock as property owned, possessed, or controlled by it; and, if it objected or desired to object to being thus assessed, it should have gone before the board of equalization, and had the correction made.

It is contended by appellant that the board of equalization had no authority to make this correction. It is the duty of this board to "examine the assessment book, and adjust and equalize the valuation of the taxable property of the county." We do not think it can be successfully contended that, under the law, this board has no authority to correct an assessment when property has been assessed to a party which he does not own, or when there has been a double assessment or property exempt from taxation has been assessed, etc. The most that can be said in this case is that property has been assessed to plaintiff which it claims it does not own, and therefore not liable for the taxes thereon. If such be the fact, the plaintiff should have gone before the board of equalization for relief. In its complaint it gives no sufficient reason for not doing so....