Godfrey v. Douglas County

• Decision Date: 13 January 1896
• Parties: GODFREY et al. v. DOUGLAS COUNTY et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

43 P. 171

28 Or. 446

GODFREY et al. v. DOUGLAS COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 13, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; J.C. Fullerton, Judge.

The Douglas county court made an order increasing the assessment of O.F. Godfrey and others, and on a writ of review to the circuit court the order was set aside, and Douglas county appeals. Reversed.

This is a special proceeding by O.F. Godfrey, Peter Hume, and S.C Flint, partners doing business under the firm name of the Douglas County Bank, to have the action of the county court of Douglas county in the matter of increasing an assessment reviewed by the circuit court. The record shows: That on July 17, 1893, the county court made an order extending the time until the first Monday in October for the county assessor to return the assessment roll. That on September 6th the court met, and continued in regular session until the 11th of that month, at which time it adjourned to October 9th. That the assessor within the extended time returned the assessment roll, in which the said bank was assessed upon money, notes and accounts in the sum of $6,600. That on October 2d the board of equalization met, pursuant to notice, and continued in session until the 7th of that month, during which time the assessments of several persons were examined and altered, but no change was made in that of the bank. That on October 7th the board ordered a reduction of 10 per cent. to be made in the assessed value of certain property, not including money notes, and accounts, and delivered the assessment roll to the county court, with its certificate, attached thereto, showing that the equalization had not been completed. That on October 9th the court met, pursuant to the adjournment of September 11th, to complete the equalization, and a notice having been served upon the bank to appear and show cause why its assessment of money, notes, and accounts should not be increased, the court, on October 12th, made the following order: "In the Matter of Equalization of Assessment Roll for 1893. Assessment of Douglas County Bank. Now, at this time, it is ordered by the court that the assessment of money, notes, and accounts of the Douglas County Bank for the year 1893 be increased to $15,000; S.C. Flint, O.F. Godfrey and Peter Hume each appearing in person for said bank." That, the assessment having been increased in pursuance of said order, this proceeding was instituted, and it is alleged that the county court, in making said order, exceeded its jurisdiction, to the injury of the plaintiff's substantial rights; that the attempted increase of said assessment is unjust, and unauthorized by any facts proved before or found by said court; that the assessment roll was not returned until October 2d, at which time the board of equalization met and approved the assessment of the Douglas County Bank; that the county court thereafter, without legal notice thereof, and in the absence of any certificate that the assessment had not been examined and approved, attempted to act as a board of equalization at an adjournment of the September term of said court; that no evidence whatever was taken or produced before the court upon which it could base an alteration of said assessment; and that its action in so doing was capricious and arbitrary. A writ of review having been issued and served, the county court returned the same with a certified copy of the record, as above recited, from which the circuit court found that the county court had exceeded its jurisdiction in making said order, and rendered a judgment setting it aside, from which the defendant appeals.

J.W Hamilton, for appellants.

W.R. Willis, for respondents.

MOORE J. (after stating the facts).

The record presents two questions for consideration: (1) Did the county court have jurisdiction of the subject-matter and persons of the interested parties at the time it attempted to increase the assessment; and, if so, (2) does the record show a judgment unimpeachable upon a direct attack? The first question suggested requires an examination of the statute prescribing the duties of the assessor, board of equalization, and county court in the matter of returning the assessment roll and equalizing the assessment. The law requires the assessor to assess all the taxable property within his county and return the roll thereof to the county clerk on or before the first Monday in September (Hill's Ann.Laws Or. § 2752), and it is made the duty of the county judge, county clerk, and assessor, as a board of equalization, to meet on the last Monday in August, and, if necessary, to continue in session one week, for the purpose of examining and correcting the assessment roll and equalizing the assessment ( Id. §§ 2760, 2778). And to guard against the possible contingency of lack of time the statute provides that the county court shall, at its term in September in each year, complete the equalization ( Id. § 2782), but if the assessor is unable to complete the assessment by the last Monday in August the county court may, at any regular term thereof, prior to the first Monday of September, extend the time for returning the assessment roll to a day certain, not later than the first Monday in October ( Id. §§ 2752, 2777). It is also made the duty of the assessor to give three weeks' public notice of the meeting of the board of equalization prior to the date of returning the roll ( Id. §§ 2760, 2777), and, if the board is unable to complete the equalization during the week in which it is required to meet, it shall be the duty of the county court, at its next term thereafter, sitting to transact county business, to complete such examination and correction, in the same manner and with like effect as the board of equalization is required to do ( Id. § 2781). The record shows that the county court, on July 17, 1893, at a regular term thereof, made an order extending the time for the return of the assessment roll to the first Monday in October, at which time, the roll having been returned, the board of equalization met, pursuant to the assessor's notice, and continued in session one week; but, being unable to complete its labors within that time, the roll was submitted to the county court for final equalization, and that on October 12th the court increased the plaintiffs' assessment. The plaintiffs contend that, the court having, at its regular session in September, adjourned to the 9th of October, when it convened on the latter date its session was a continuation of the September term, and not its next term after the meeting of the board of equalization, and hence the county court was at that time powerless to equalize or correct the assessment roll, and had no authority to do so until the next regular term after the September term.

The point for which the plaintiffs contend demands an examination of the terms of the county court required to be held in Douglas county, and a definition of the word "term," as applied to a session thereof. The terms of said court, appointed by law, are held on the first Monday in January, March, May, July, September, and November (Hill's Ann.Laws Or. § 2335), and a term may also be held at such other times as the court, in term, or the county judge, in vacation, may appoint ( Id. § 899). In Tompkins v. Clackamas Co., 11 Or. 364, 4 P 1210, it was held that, when the statute referred to the terms of a county court, it meant the regular terms prescribed by law, and not the special terms appointed by the court or judge thereof. This opinion was rendered in the construction of a statute under the authority of which the county court of Clackamas county sought to establish...