Hixon v. Oneida Cnty.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1892
• Citation: 52 N.W. 445,82 Wis. 515
• Parties: HIXON ET AL. v. ONEIDA COUNTY ET AL., (TWO CASES.)
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

82 Wis. 515

52 N.W. 445

HIXON ET AL.

v.ONEIDA COUNTY ET AL., (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 15, 1892.

Cross appeals from circuit court, Brown county; SAMUEL D. HASTINGS, Judge.

Suit by G. C. Hixon and others against Oneida county and C. Eby, county treasurer, to restrain the collection of certain taxes. From a judgment in part as prayed, both parties appeal. Reversed on both appeals.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by PINNEY, J.:

This action was commenced to cancel, set aside, and restrain the collection of certain taxes on about 221 tracts or more of land of the plaintiffs in the town of Eagle River, in Oneida county, for the year 1889, upon various grounds set forth in the complaint, which were put in issue by the answer of the defendants. The finding of the court as to facts proved is quite lengthy and elaborate, the material parts of which are, in substance, as follows:

(4) That the assessor of the town of Eagle River, in describing the real property on the assessment roll for the year 1889, did not make a correct and full description of each tract of land, so that, read by itself, without reference to the preceding descriptions, it would clearly designate the property, but at the top of the page would enter a full description of the northeast quarter of some quarter section, carrying out the section, town, range, number of acres, and valuation in the proper columns, and for a description of the other 40-acre tracts in said quarter section would only give the first two initial letters, as “N. W.,” without giving the initial letters of the quarter section of which it formed a part, or putting any figures or marks in the columns for section, town, or range, but giving the number of acres, either in figures, or by ditto marks, and giving the assessed value, so that when the four tracts in a quarter section were thus entered, the four initial letters for one tract in the next quarter section would be given, with number of acres and valuation, and when a new section was reached its number would be placed in the appropriate column opposite the first description in said section, and so with a new town or range. Where sections were fractional, only the number of the lots were given with the number of acres, and the valuation of each. In some instances the word “lot” was written before the first number, and in others the word “lot” does not appear in connection with any of the numbers. No names were entered in the column for owners' names. In some cases the assessor discovered that he had omitted certain descriptions, and, instead of placing them out of their order at the end of the book, he entered them opposite the description in the section where they belonged in the blank column for owners' names, by writing first the town, range, and section, and under it the initial letters of the tract, with the valuation fixed by him, as “Lot 1, $10,” or “S. E. S. E., $20.” In the column headed “Value Fixed by the Assessor,” opposite some descriptions appeared the letter “S,” opposite some the letter “V,” and opposite some the letter “W,” with no valuation. In some cases, opposite such lands, are values fixed by the board of review. When the assessor made the roll he understood that these lands were state or government lands, not taxable, and he placed the letter “S” to designate state lands, the letter “V” to designate vacant government lands, and the letter “W” to designate government lands reserved for water purposes. After the roll was completed and lists of entries obtained from the state and United States land officers, it was found that some of these lands had been entered and were taxable, and the assessor and board of review placed a valuation on them. The town of Eagle embraced over 576 square miles of territory, the greater portion of which was liable to taxation. Each tract of land was described on the roll as hereinbefore indicated, and was valued by the assessor, except those understood to be exempt, and such as were afterwards found to be taxable valued by the assessor and board of review. All these descriptions were understood by the assessor, by the board of review, by the town treasurer and clerk, and the taxpayers of the town. The tax roll for said year was made from said assessment roll by describing the property in the same manner as on the roll, except that those tracts described on the assessment roll in the column headed “Owners' Names” were put in their proper place in regular order. Taxes for said year on the greater portion of the lands in said town were paid to the town treasurer. A delinquent return was made by the town treasurer to the county treasurer of all lands on which the taxes for that year had not been paid, in which each tract of land was fully and accurately described; and the taxes were afterwards paid to the county treasurer on nearly all of the lands on which payment had not been made to the town treasurer except said lands belonging to the plaintiffs. That no inconvenience or embarrassment has resulted to said plaintiffs from the manner or form in which said assessment roll was made, and no error or defect therein has resulted in charging them with any more than their just and equitable portion of the taxes of said town for said year.

(5) That as to all the irregularities in respect to the form of roll and description of property the assessor acted in good faith, following the practice of former assessors for said town.

(6) And he also acted in making what he regarded a fair and equitable valuation from actual view in part, and from the best information he could practically obtain in part, and without intentionally discriminating against any or in favor of any; and that the board of review, in reviewing said assessment, acted in the same manner.

(7) No watches were assessed by the assessor for that year. There were watches belonging to residents and taxpayers of the town and assessable for that year of a true cash value of $2,000 and upwards. That neither of the plaintiffs resided in said town, or had a watch assessable therein in 1889; and the fact that no watches were assessed was not brought to the attention of the town board of review as a board. One member of the board knew the facts. It does not appear that the assessor knew that there were watches assessable in said town for said year, or that he intentionally omitted to assess any such watches.

(8) That for several days during the sessionsof the town board of review during said year the clerk was absent on account of his father's death, and that his brother was authorized by the board to act as their clerk, and did so act, keeping such minutes and records of their proceedings as were kept; but it does not appear that he took part in their deliberations, or voted on any question, or in any way influenced the action of the board.

(9) No witnesses were examined by or before the board, and no evidence was before them except unverified but true copies of reports of land inspectors, who had inspected the land in the town, under appointment from the board of supervisors of the county. Numerous changes were made in the assessor's valuation of the wild lands in the town, and the only record thereof, other than the changes themselves as shown on the roll, was kept on loose sheets of paper, without signature, and filed in the town clerk's office. The only other record of the proceedings of said board was kept in the record book kept by the town clerk, showing meetings and adjournments; but this was not signed by the town clerk. That the result of the changes in assessor's values made by said board was to increase the relative value of plaintiff's lands not to exceed $300.

(10) The entire tax carried out on the roll was $32,945.23, $4,341.10 of which was carried out opposite to and charged against plaintiff's lands, and was the proportion properly chargeable to said land according to said assessment as equalized.

(11) The records of the town were kept in a book prepared by some blank book manufacturer, containing headings showing for what purpose it was used, and in which the clerk recorded the proceedings of the town board and of the town meetings of said town. None of the records were signed by the town clerk, and were not in any other way authenticated than by being made by the clerk in his own handwriting, in said book kept by him in his office. The original minutes of the town meetings were taken on loose sheets of paper, which were filed in the clerk's office.

(12) This record shows, as the fact is, that at the annual town meeting held April 2, 1889, the following appropriations were voted: For general fund, $2,000; for highway fund, $5,000; for bridge fund, $300; for school fund, $4,500; for cemetery fund, $1,000; for repairs on town hall, $500; to build sidewalk on bridge, $600; total, $13,900.

(13) The record shows that at a meeting of the town board held the 11th of December, at which all the members were present, a motion was made and carried that the following amounts be put in the tax roll for the ensuing year: General fund, $2,000; town hall fund, $273.14; cemetery fund, $371.25; bridge fund, special bridge fund, $3,500; general, $300; highway fund, $4,045; town of Ackley, $1,550; town of Merrill, $1,740; bridge bonds, $1,070; school fund, $4,500; judgment orders, $60; total, $19,409.39.

(14) There is no record of any action by the town board or by the electors of said town at any meeting during the year 1889 relative to cemetery, cemetery fund, or tax for cemetery purposes, other than as above stated.

(15) At a meeting of the supervisors, March 19, 1889, a resolution was adopted and signed by them for building two bridges across the Wisconsin river at specified points in the town, and that $3,500 be raised for the coming year to build them, and that the resolution be submitted to the electors at the annual town meeting, the manner of voting to be as...