Hamilton v. Rosenblatt

• Decision Date: 20 January 1880
• Parties: ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. M. A. ROSENBLATT, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

8 Mo.App. 237

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Plaintiff in Error,

v.M. A. ROSENBLATT, Defendant in Error.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jan. 20, 1880.

1. Where an erroneous or excessive valuation has been placed by the proper officers upon property in assessing it for taxation, in the absence of fraud, the courts cannot interfere; a tax based upon such an assessment can be attacked only for fraud or want of jurisdiction.

2. The mere fact that property is assessed at double its cash value is not conclusive evidence of fraud, and a suspicion of partiality on the part of the assessor, based upon such a valuation, is not ground for equitable relief.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

A. HAMILTON, pro se: Where the assessor assesses property at double its real value, and double that returned by the owner, this alone furnishes sufficient evidence, in the consideration of a court of equity, to sustain the allegation of fraud and entitle the party to relief.-- King v. Moon, 42 Mo. 555; 1 White & Tudor Ld. Cas. 826, 827; Lester v. Mahan, 25 Ala. 448; Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. 456; Chicago v. Burtice, 24 Ill. 489; Pacific Hotel v. Lieb, 83 Ill. 609; Richards v. Cannon, 16 Barb. 250; Knowlton v. Supervisors, 9 Wis. 410; Warden v. Fond du Lac County, 14 Wis. 620; Merrill v. Humphrey, 24 Mich. 170; Heath v. Police, 41 N. Y. Superior Ct. 332; Lefferts v. Supervisors, 21 Wis. 690.

M. B. JONAS, for the defendant in error: Equity has no jurisdiction, under its general powers, to correct a merely unequal or unjust assessment, when there is a statutory board that may do so.--Cooley on Tax. 528, 529; Rhodes v. Cushman, 45 Ind. 85; Dorris v. Rosenblatt, 6 Mo. App. 601. The Board of Equalization acts judicially.-- Insurance Co. v. Charles, 47 Mo. 462; Railroad Co. v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 482; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 Ill. 595. And, its action being judicial, is conclusive until reviewed by certiorari.--Burr. on Tax., sect. 141; Hughes v. Kline,30 Pa. St. 201. An honest assessment, though an overvaluation, is not fraudulent.-- Spencer v. The People, 68 Ill. 510; Gage v. Evans, 9 Cent. L. J. 237. Fraud will not be presumed because of such overvaluation.-- Insurance Co. v. Pollak, 78 Ill. 293; Picot v. Bates, 47 Mo. 392; Bryan v. Hitchcock, 43 Mo. 531; Waddingham v. Loker, 44 Mo. 134; Bernicker v. Miller, 44 Mo. 112.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court

The proceeding is against defendant as collector of the city of St. Louis, to enjoin the collection of a tax alleged to be excessive and fraudulent. The petition alleges that defendant is the owner of a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, described, and proceeds as follows:--

“That the city assessor fraudulently assessed the said land, with the improvements thereon, for the year 1878, at the exorbitant and excessive valuation of $13,150, whereas the actual cash value of said property did not exceed $7,000; that plaintiff in due time and form appealed to the board of Equalization for said city for relief against said excessive valuation, but after hearing said appeal, the said Board overruled the same and refused to make any deduction from said assessment, leaving the same to stand at $13,150; that a tax-bill for the sum of $391.90, based on said assessment, at the rate of two dollars and sixty cents per hundred dollars, is now in the hands of the defendant, as collector of said city, for collection, who will enforce and collect the same unless prohibited and restrained by this court, and will cause said property to be sold on account of said assessment, a proceeding which will occasion an irreparable injury to the plaintiff and cast a cloud on the title to said property--said assessment on its face being a valid lien thereon, and extrinsic evidence being required to establish its invalidity; that, to avoid litigation, plaintiff has been willing to pay the sum of $182 for the taxes on said property for said year, which is more than the defendant is entitled to demand of him, being equivalent to an assessment and valuation of $7,000, at the same rate aforesaid; and plaintiff brings into court said sum of $182, and tenders the same to the acceptance of the defendant.”

The prayer is for a perpetual injunction.

The case was submitted to the court for trial on the following statement of facts:--

That, except as to the allegation of fraud in the making of the said assessment, the facts are as stated in the petition, and that as to the said allegation of fraud, the plaintiff has no other or further evidence to produce in support thereof than the mere fact of the excessive valuation of said property at $13,150, when the actual cash value thereof did not exceed $7,000; it being the intention of the parties hereto to raise and submit to the court the question whether or not these facts amount to sufficient proof of the allegation of fraud.

No objection, if any, was or is made that a formal tender by the plaintiff of the amount of the tax admitted to be due was not made before the institution of this suit.

It is further agreed that said property was legally returned by the plaintiff to the assessor, but said assessment was more than double the value put upon the property by the plaintiff.

The court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's petition. A motion for a new trial was overruled.

The valuation of land for the purpose of taxation is confided to the skill and judgment of the assessor, who acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. There is no provision for an appeal from his decision to the courts; nor have the courts any supervisory control over his...