Gillett v. Board of Com'rs of Logan County

• Decision Date: 11 September 1899
• Parties: GILLETT v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF LOGAN COUNTY.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

58 P. 335

13 Colo.App. 380

GILLETT v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF LOGAN COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

September 11, 1899

Appeal from district court, Logan county.

Action by L.T. Gillett against the board of county commissioners of the county of Logan for the modification of a tax assessment. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appealed to the district court, which sustained the order, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W.E Crisman, for appellant.

W.L Hays and Geo. E. McConley, for appellee.

BISSELL P.J.

While this is a somewhat anomalous procedure, and raises questions which have never been presented, so far as we know, to the courts of the state, and parties have suggested some novel and interesting questions respecting the power of the courts to interfere with the actions of the assessors in the state the case turns wholly and entirely, as we look at it, on matters of fact; and we shall affirm the judgment on that question only, leaving undecided and undiscussed most of the legal propositions which the parties have presented in their briefs.

In 1896 the appellant, Gillett, was assessed for that year on some 11,720 acres of land, and his taxes amounted to $501.68. These taxes he paid, as by statute he was in duty bound, and thereafter filed with the board of county commissioners a petition wherein he set up that he was the owner of the land which was described, and of the amount stated, and further averred that all the land was unjustly assessed by the assessor of Logan county at the sum of $1.12 1/2 per acre. He further alleged that the true cash value did not exceed the sum of 25 cents per acre, and that his just assessment, compared with other like property, should not exceed that sum. He therefore prayed the board of county commissioners to modify the assessment according to the prayer, and to certify a copy of the order and judgment to the county treasurer, instructing him accordingly. The petition was duly presented to the board, which promptly disallowed it and refused to reduce the assessment. Thereupon Gillett took an appeal to the district court, and therein a hearing was had on the matters of fact involved. There seems to be no question respecting the entire regularity of this procedure. According to our statute, all taxable property must be listed and valued and assessed at its full cash value, which that statute defines to be the amount at which the property would be appraised if taken in payment of a just debt from a solvent debtor. The statute further provides that, whenever a person owning assessable property has been unjustly or erroneously assessed, he may petition the board of county commissioners before the 1st of the following January for a correction of the assessment. In his petition he is bound to describe the property, the sum at which it is assessed, its true cash value, and state what is a just assessment compared with other like properties. The board is given full power to grant or refuse the prayer, either in whole or in part, and when it is decided the petitioner may appeal from the decision of the board to the district court of the county in which the property is situated. There is provision likewise for the perfection of the appeal, and a further provision that he must pay the taxes before the appeal is allowed. The board or the court, in the consideration of the petition, is bound to be governed by the values fixed on other assessable property similarly situated in the county, for the purposes of taxation. Mills' Ann.St. §§ 3769, 3782, 3839-3841. When the cause was heard in the district court a large amount of evidence was produced by the petitioner tending to show the cash value of the property, under the statutory definition of the term. There was also an attempt to show this property was unjustly assessed, because...