Jones v. Renfrew

• Decision Date: 30 July 1898
• Citation: 7 Okla. 198,54 P. 448,1898 OK 99
• Parties: WEBB & JONES v. J. R. RENFREW, et al
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1898 OK 99

54 P. 448

7 Okla. 198

WEBB & JONES v. J. R. RENFREW, et al

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: July 30, 1898

SYLLABUS

¶0 1. TAXES--Qualization of. The territorial board of equalization, in equalizing the taxes between the several counties, may take the returns of any one county, which, in its judgment, most nearly represents the true cash value of all the property therein, as a basis, and may lower or raise the valuation as returned from any or all of the other counties, so as to make such valuations conform to such basis, notwithstanding that by such action the aggregate valuations of all the counties as returned may be increased or decreased; and a county board may, in like manner, take one township as a basis, and raise or lower the returned valuations of the other townships thereto, notwithstanding such action may increase or decrease the aggregate of valuations returned from the several townships.

2. TAXATION--Excessive Assessments. The limit of valuation of property for taxation is the actual cash value thereof. Any assessment of property for taxation in excess of its actual cash value is, to the extent of such excess, void. Where cattle of a taxpayer are of a value not exceeding $ 10 per head, and the same are, by the assessor, fraudulently, and for the purpose of causing an excessive tax to be levied thereon, assessed at $ 17.33 per head, and in equalizing the valuation of such property the county board of equalization increases such valuation 20 per cent., and the territorial board of equalization increases the same 40 per cent., a court of equity has power to relieve from all of such assessment in excess of the actual cash value of the property.

Error from the District Court of Woods County; before Jno. L. McAtee, District Judge.

Action by Webb & Jones against J. P. Renfrew and others to enjoin collection of taxes illegally assessed. From the judgment both parties bring error. Reversed.

Joseph Porter, A. C. Towne and George T. Parry, for plaintiffs in error.

Sample & Noah, for defendants in error.

TARSNEY, J.:

¶1 This case, No. 523, and case No. 526, although brought to this court, docketed, argued, and submitted as distinct cases, are, in fact, cross-appeals from the same judgment. The principal question presented and argued arose upon the action of the court below in overruling the demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff. The demurrer presented the question of the authority of a county board of equalization, in equalizing assessments between the several townships of the county, to increase the aggregate valuation returned, and the authority of the territorial board of equalization, in equalizing assessments between the several counties, to increase the aggregate of valuations returned by the several clerks of the several counties. The authority of the territorial board of equalization is no longer an open question. The case of Wallace v. Bullen, (decided by this court July 17, 1896,) 6 Okla. 17, approved and affirmed upon rehearing at the present term, Id. 757, is decisive that the action of the territorial board of equalization is not invalid merely because its action results in increasing the aggregate of assessments of the various counties of the Territory over the aggregate of the returns made by the several clerks of the several counties to the auditor.

¶2 This case presents the additional question whether the county boards of equalization are restricted to equalizing the valuations returned by the several township assessors, or whether they are empowered, in equalizing assessments between the several townships, to increase the aggregate valuation of the property of the county over the sum of the valuations returned to them by the several town ship assessors.

¶3 Statutes of Oklahoma, 1893, sec. 5621, provides: "The board of county commissioners of each county shall constitute a board, or a majority of the members thereof shall hold a session of not less than two days at the county seat, commencing on the first Monday of June in each year, for the purpose of equalizing the assessment rolls in their county between the different townships." This is the only provision in our statutes relating to the subject. It makes it the duty of the board to hold a session commencing on the first Monday of June in each year, for the purpose of equalizing the assessment rolls between the several townships, without prescribing the mode to be adopted. The Organic Act of this Territory and various provisions of the statutes contemplate and require that property shall be assessed at its true cash value for the purposes of taxation. The county board of equalization is a constituent part of the machinery created to secure the assessment of property at its true cash value. The statute not providing the method by which the county board shall perform its functions, and not providing limitations or restrictions upon the manner in which it shall exercise its authority, leaves the board to adopt any reasonable and just method, so as to make the valuations of property in the several townships uniform and equal, and so that the burden of taxation may be apportioned equitably among the taxpayers of the several townships, in proportion to the value of their property. (State v. Thomas, [Utah] 50 P. 615.)

¶4 There being in the statutes of this Territory no limitation or restriction upon the methods to be pursued by the county boards in equalizing between the townships different from the restrictions and limitations concerning the methods of the territorial board in equalizing between the several counties of the Territory, upon the authority of Wallace v. Bullen we must hold that the county board of equalization has the same authority in equalizing between the several townships of the county that the territorial board has in equalizing between the counties; that such board has the right to determine the value of property; and, if necessary for the purpose of equalization, may raise the value of one township and lower that of another, or may take the returns of any one township, which, in its opinion, most nearly represents the true cash value of property therein, as a basis, and may lower or raise the valuations of all the other townships to that basis, notwithstanding that by such action the total valuation of the property of the county may be increased or decreased. It follows that, unless the action of the county and territorial boards of equalization complained of in this case contravenes some other principle of law, the demurrer to the plaintiff's petition should have been sustained and the cause dismissed.

¶5 The amended petition of the plaintiffs in this cause alleged that the plaintiffs were, on the 1st day of February, 1895, the owners of 1,500 head of cattle, located in Crowell township, Woods county; that said cattle were assessed by the assessor of that township for that year at the sum of $ 17.33 per head; that the board of county commissioners of said county of Woods, acting as a board of equalization, increased the aggregate of the valuation for assessment of all the property in said Crowell township 20 per cent.; that the territorial board of equalization increased the aggregate of the returns of the county clerk of Woods county 40 per cent.; that the effect of the action of the county board was to raise the valuation of plaintiff's property from $ 17.33 per head to $ 20.79 per head; and that the effect of the action of the territorial board was to raise the valuation of plaintiff's cattle from $ 20.79 per head, as fixed by the county board, to $ 29.12 per head; that plaintiff's said cattle were of the actual value of $ 10 per head on the 1st day of February, 1895; that, although the true actual cash value of said cattle did not exceed $ 10 per head, the valuation thereof was by the assessor fraudulently wrongfully, and illegally, and for the purpose of increasing the amount of taxes thereon, raised to $ 17.33 per head, and that $ 17.33 per head was far in excess of the true value of said cattle. Before the said demurrer had been filed, or by the court overruled, the defendants filed their motion to strike out of said petition all allegations therein contained except those relating to, and which raised the question of the legality of, the action of the boards of county and territorial equalization in increasing the aggregate of the valuations in Crowell township and in Woods...