Humbird Lumber Co. v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 28 December 1905
• Citation: 83 P. 941,11 Idaho 614
• Parties: HUMBIRD LUMBER COMPANY v. THOMPSON
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

83 P. 941

11 Idaho 614

HUMBIRD LUMBER COMPANY v. THOMPSON

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 28, 1905

DEMURRER WILL BE SUSTAINED TO A COMPLAINT IN EQUITY TO ENJOIN COUNTY ASSESSOR WHEN-FULL CASH VALUE OF PROPERTY MUST BE ALLEGED-AN ALLEGATION THAT OTHER PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF EQUAL VALUE HAS BEEN ASSESSED LOWER NOT SUFFICIENT.

1. A demurrer will be sustained to a complaint in equity to enjoin the assessor and tax collector from selling lands of complainant to satisfy taxes assessed where all the requirements of the statute have not been complied with.

2. A complaint to enjoin the assessor and tax collector from selling property to satisfy a tax levy regular in form must allege the full cash value of the property if the injunction is prayed for on the ground that the levy is excessive.

3. A complaint that only alleges the "cash value," "fair value" or "true value" is not a compliance with section 10 of the revenue act (Sess. Laws 1901, p. 230).

4. An allegation that other property of similar character and value in the vicinity or county has been assessed at a less valuation than complainants is not sufficient to warrant a court of equity to grant relief.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County. Honorable R. T. Morgan District Judge.

Action to restrain and enjoin the assessor and tax collector and the county from collecting the taxes assessed against appellant for the year 1903. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and judgment for costs awarded to respondents. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment sustained, with costs to respondent.

Charles L. Heitman, for Appellant.

It is clear that appellant had no adequate remedy at law. No appeal lies from the action of the board of county commissioners sitting as a board of equalization. (Humbird Lumber Co v. Morgan, 10 Idaho 327, 77 P. 433.) The county assessors are required to assess lands situated in their respective counties at their cash value. (Laws 1899, p. 303.) The assessment in this case, according to the complaint, was made for more than the cash value of said lands, and the action of the assessor was unjustifiable, and appellant is entitled to relief. (Idaho Const., art. 7, secs. 2, 5; Orr v. State Board of Equalization, 3 Idaho 190, 28 P. 416; County Commrs. v. Owen, 7 Colo. 467, 4 P 795.) The Illinois state constitution prescribes that the "general assembly shall provide for levying a tax by valuation so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his or her property." This language is almost identical with that in section 5, article 7 of our state constitution. The Illinois constitution also provides that "the corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns and villages may be vested with power to assess and collect taxes, such taxes to be uniform in respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same." (Trustees v. McConnell, 12 Ill. 138; O'Kane v. Treat, 25 Ill. 458; Hunsaker v. Wright, 30 Ill. 146; Dunham v. Chicago, 55 Ill. 357; Madison County Court v. People, 58 Ill. 456; Cooley on Taxation, 164.)

Ezra Whitla, County Attorney, and C. W. Beale, for Respondent.

Section 35, page 248 of the Session Laws of 1901 contains a mandatory prohibition against the board of equalization from interfering in any manner whatever with the valuation placed upon property by the assessor, upon the failure of the taxpayer to furnish a sworn statement containing the value of his taxable property; the language being as follows: "And the value so fixed by the assessor must not be reduced by the board of commissioners." (Erwin v. Hubbard, 4 Idaho 170, 37 P. 274; State v. Sadler, 21 Nev. 13, 23 P. 799. To the same effect see Board of Commrs. v. Denver Union Water Co., 32 Colo. 382, 76 P. 1060.) "It seems to be the well-settled rule that when the law has provided boards of equalization, with power to adjust or correct assessments, parties being dissatisfied with the assessment of their property must apply to them, in the first instance, for relief, and that courts of equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain an irregular or illegal assessment until such relief has been sought and denied." (First Nat. Bank of Missoula v. Bailey, 15 Mont. 301, 39 P. 83; Stanley v. Supervisrs of Albany, 121 U.S. 535, 7 S.Ct. 1234, 30 L.Ed. 1000; High on Injunctions, 3d ed., sec. 486, p. 370.) Mere irregularities in the valuation of property for taxation, or an excessive valuation, in the absence of fraud, will not warrant relief by injunction. (High on Injunctions, 3d ed., sec. 488, p. 372; Woodman v. Ely, 2 F. 839; National Bank v. Kimball, 103 U.S. 732, 26 L.Ed. 469; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U.S. 575, 23 L.Ed. 663; Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Perea, 147 U.S. 87, 13 S.Ct. 194, 37 L.Ed. 91.)

STOCKSLAGER, C. J. Ailshie, J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

STOCKSLAGER, C. J.

This is an action to enjoin the respondent, Robert C. Thompson, as assessor and tax collector of Kootenai county, from selling the lands of appellant to pay the taxes of appellant for the year 1903. Plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation created under the laws of the state of Washington, and authorized to do business in the state of Idaho; that plaintiff is the owner of large tracts of land in Kootenai county; that in the year 1903, Robert C. Thompson, as assessor of Kootenai county, assessed to the plaintiff the lands described in exhibit "A" and fixed the assessment and valuation thereon as follows: The lands described in that part of exhibit "A," entitled "Pack River District," were assessed at $ 7 per acre, in "Priest River District" at $ 3 per acre, and in the "Hoodoo Yellow Pine District" at $ 2 per acre, and that they were extended on the assessment-roll of Kootenai county by said Thompson as such assessor. That said defendant Thompson, as such assessor, in assessing said lands, assessed said lands at much more than their cash value, and that said assessments as so made were and are far greater and higher than the assessment by said Thompson of other lands in the same county of the same class, character and value, and are in excess of the fair value of said lands and are unequal as compared with the assessment of lands in the same locality and in other localities in the county of Kootenai of the same class, character and value, and are unequal and unjust, and that said assessments are not uniform as compared with the assessments of other lands; that the true value of the lands described in that part of exhibit "A" entitled "Pack River District," and which were assessed at $ 7 per acre, is and was $ 3.50 per acre; that the true value of the lands in the "Priest River District" is and was $ 3 per acre; that the true value of the lands in the "Hoodoo Yellow Pine District" is and was $ 2 per acre, except the lands described as "cut and burnt lands," the true value of which was and is $ 1 per acre.

It is then alleged that on or about the thirteenth day of July 1903, said Humbird Lumber Company filed with the board of county commissioners for the county of Kootenai, sitting as a board of equalization, its application for a reduction of valuation of property, which application is annexed to this second amended complaint, marked exhibit "A"; that said application came on for hearing before said board of county commissioners on the thirteenth day of July, 1903, and witnesses were sworn and testified in support of said petition, and the hearing thereof was continued until the twentieth day of July, 1903, and on said day additional evidence, documentary and oral, was introduced in support of said petition, and the matter was taken under advisement by said board sitting as a board of equalization, until the twenty-seventh day of July, 1903; that on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1903, the said board sitting as a board of equalization made an order, entered upon the minutes of the court, granting a limited part of the relief sought by said Humbird Lumber Company in said proceedings. Copies of the minute entries and of the order made by said board are annexed to this amended complaint, marked exhibit "B."

The next allegation, being 8, sets out that being dissatisfied with the action of the board in refusing to grant the reduction sought, it did on the second day of September, and within twenty days after the first publication of the proceedings of the board, file, and cause to be served its notice of appeal from said order of the board made on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1903, and on the second day of September, filed its undertaking on appeal in the sum of $ 300. That on the fifth day of October, 1903, Thomas H Wilson, county attorney in behalf of defendant, Kootenai county, caused to be filed and served a notice to dismiss the appeal, and thereafter, on same date, he filed a notice of motion to dismiss the appeal; that thereafter and on the seventh day of October, 1903, said motion to dismiss the appeal was heard and taken under advisement. That on the twentieth day of October, 1903, the motion was denied; that on the third day of November, 1903, said appeal come on to be heard upon its merits, at which hearing witnesses were sworn and examined and documentary evidence introduced in behalf of said Humbird Lumber Company, and after said Humbird Lumber Company had introduced its evidence in support of its claim, the county of Kootenai and said members of the board of county commissioners requested and obtained an extension of time in which to introduce evidence in opposition to the claim of said Humbird Lumber Company for a reduction of the assessed valuation of its said lands; that the proceedings came on for hearing before the honorable judge of...