Heth v. City Of Radford

• Decision Date: 11 July 1898
• Citation: 96 Va. 272,31 S.E. 8
• Parties: HETH . v. CITY OF RADFORD.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

31 S.E. 8

96 Va. 272

HETH .

v.CITY OF RADFORD.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

July 11, 1898.

Municipal Corporations — Taxation — Assessment—Review—Due Process op Law.

1. Radford City Charter, § 45 (Laws 1891-92, p. 144), providing that property shall be assessed at a valuation irrespective of the value as assessed¹ for the purposes of state taxa-tion, and containing no provision by which the owner may have its value, as ascertained under said charter, reviewed and corrected, violates Const. U. S. 14th Amend., as depriving the owner of his property without due process of law.

2. Code, c. 23, § 444, provides for correcting excessive assessments as made throughout the state every five years, in obedience to the constitution, by assessors specially appointed by the county and corporation courts of all counties and cities. Held, that the "assessor" so referred to is a different officer from the commissioner of revenue mentioned in Radford City Charter, § 45 (Laws 1891-92, p. 144), which provides for assessments for taxation, and hence an assessment made under such charter is not reviewable under section 444.

3. Where lands in a city were assessed under an invalid provision of the city charter, the proper valuation to be laid by the city levies was the valuation as ascertained by the last general state assessment.

Error to circuit court, Montgomery county.

Application by one Heth to correct a valuation under an assessment for taxation by the city of Radford. The application was denied, and petitioner brings error. Reversed.

Phlegar & Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

Fulkprson, Page & Hurt, for defendant in error.

RIELY, J. This wan an application to the hustings court of the city of Radford, under the authority of section 571 of the Code, to correct an assessment of levies by the city of Radford on land of the plaintiff in error for the years 1892 and 1893, which were alleged to be erroneous. The judge of that court, being so situated as to render it improper, in his opinion, to try the case, removed it to the circuit court of Montgomery county.

On the hearing of the application, the facts were agreed, from which it appears that the land of the plaintiff in error, at the last assessment of lands in the state for the purposes of taxation, made in 1890, in obedience to the requirement of the constitution, and laws enacted in pursuance thereof, was valued at $15,-450, and that taxes were assessed and paid to the state according to that valuation; but that the land for the assessment of city levies was reassessed in 1892, under the authority of the charter of the city, and raised from $15,450 to $29,325. The application to the court was to have the city levies for the years 1892 and 1893 abated by the difference between their amounts and what they would have been if they had been based on the general assessment of lands made in 1890. The circuit court denied the application.

The writ of error allowed by this court draws in question the validity of section 45 of the city's charter, under which the value of the land was assessed for the purpose of laying the city levies. It reads as follows:

"Sec. 45. * " * The said commissioner of the revenue, in ascertaining the value of the real property taxable in said city, shall fix the same at the actual cash value of said property at the time of assessment, irrespective of the value assessed for the purposes of state taxation, until the next general assessment, and the first assessment not later than July first, eighteen hundred and ninety two: provided also, that a board, consisting of the commissioner of the revenue and two freeholders, to be appointed by the corporation court, whose duty it shall be to assess the real estate of the city." Laws 1891-92, p. 144.

It will be observed that the section contains no provision by which the owner of the land may have its value, as ascertained by the board of assessors, reviewed and corrected, if excessive. No provision is made for a rehearing of the matter by the board upon the complaint of the owner that the land has been valued too high, nor for an appeal to any other tribunal. Its value for the assessment of city levies is finally ascertained and established...