Midwest Hotel Co. v. State Board of Equalization

• Decision Date: 17 January 1929
• Docket Number: 1510
• Parties: MIDWEST HOTEL CO. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION [*]
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

273 P. 696

39 Wyo. 461

MIDWEST HOTEL CO. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ^[*]

No. 1510

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 17, 1929

APPEAL from District Court, Natrona County, JAMES H. BURGESS, Judge.

Proceedings by the Midwest Hotel Company before the State Board of Equalization for reduction in the valuation of certain property for taxation purposes. From the order of the State Board of Equalization, petitioner appealed to the District Court, and from an order of the District Court dismissing the appeal, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Edwin Barrett and Vincent Mulvaney of Casper, for appellant.

This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court, dismissing an appeal taken from a decision of the State Board of Equalization; the statute authorizes appeals from the State Board, Chapter 56, Sessions Laws of 1923. It is true that the statute does not provide a method of appeal, but it was conceded by respondent that the motion should not destroy the right of appeal, which is provided under the Compiled Statutes of 1920, Sections 753-757, inclusive. The appeal from the Board was dismissed pursuant to Section 10, Article V of the Constitution, defining the jurisdiction of courts but said provisions should be read in connection with Article XV, Section 11 of the Constitution, and Section 9 of the some Article creating a State Board of Equalization. An extraordinary remedy may not be resorted to until the remedy by appeal is exhausted, State v. Board, (Wyo.) 254 P. 491; Cooper v. McCormick, 10 Wyo. 388; Rowland v. Drainage District, (Ill.) 98 N.E. 970 and cases cited. Fletcher v. Peck, (U.S.) 3 L.Ed 175. The Constitution provides for a State Board of Equalization and defines its duties, Art. XV, Sections 9-10. A right of appeal was intended by the Statute, and the intent of the legislature should be carried out. Boards of Equalization act judicially.

Cooley-Taxation, Vol. 3, (4th Ed.) p. 2400.

Hopper v. Oklahoma Co., 143 P. 5.

County v. Acom., (Neb.) 100 N.W. 136.

Stanley v. Board of Supervisors, 121 U.S. 535.

Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Assn., 29 Wyo. 474.

An appeal is the proper remedy when authorized by statute.

Hopper v. Oklahoma Co., 143 P. 4.

Williams v. Garfield ex. Bank, 134 P. 863.

There is an adequate remedy at law when there is an appeal to the court. Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Carr, (Ill.) 135 N.E. 881. Peterson v. Board of Review, (Ia.) 116 N.W. 818. Busey v. Prehistoric Oil & Gas Co., (Okla.) 191 P. 1033. Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 4 (4th Ed.) P. 3327. The question should have been heard de novo by the District Court, as appellant could not resort to equity. Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Assn., 29 Wyo. 485; Continental Bank v. Naylor, 141 Utah 49, 179 P. 67.

W. O. Wilson, Attorney General, and J. A. Greenwood, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

The appeal was dismissed by the District Court on motion of counsel for the State Board of Equalization; the court holding that it had no appellate jurisdiction of the subject matter. A decision of the State Board of Equalization as to value, is not reviewable by the courts in the absence of a showing of fraud; Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association, 29 Wyo. 474; Ricketts v. Crewsdon, 13 Wyo. 284; Board v. Cattle Co., 3 Wyo. 778. There are no facts alleged showing fraud on the part of the Board of Equalization, and there is no intimation that the State Board acted fraudulently; the State Board having acted with authority in correcting the decision of the County Board, disposes of the question of fraud. Oregon Co. v. Coos, 39 Ore. 185, 64 P. 646; Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. v. Los Angeles, 162 Cal. 164, 121 P. 384, and cases cited. Under the rule in Bunten v. Grazing Association, supra, appellant's remedy was an action to prevent the collection of the tax, or the taking of its property, if the proceedings were unlawful. Chapter 56, Sessions Laws 1923 is unconstitutional. The Board is not an "inferior court," within the meaning of Article V, Sections 1 and 10 of the Constitution. Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 520; Board v. Gwin, 36 N.E. 237; Chinn v. Court, (Calif.) 105 P. 580; in re Allison, 13 Colo. 525. The State Board not being a court, it follows that no appeal lies to a District Court from its decisions. Article V, Section 1, Const. The legislature cannot extend the jurisdiction of the District Court as has been attempted by Chapter 56, Laws 1923. State ex rel. Bennett v. Barber, 4 Wyo. 56; State v. True, 26 Wyo. 314; State v. O'Leary, 115 P. 204; Auditor v. Atchison etc. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500; State v. Le Clair, 86 Me. 522, 30 A. 7; State v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150. The action of the State Board was final. Auditor v. Atchison etc. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500; Hubbel v. McCourt, 44 Wis. 584; People v. Board of Trade, 62 N.E. 196. The right of appeal exists only when given by statute, or some constitutional provision. Golding v. Jennings, 1 Utah 135; 2 Cyc. 517, Chapter 56, Laws of 1923, is repugnant to the spirit of the constitutional provisions above referred to. Auditor v. Railroad Co., supra; State v. Morres, 55 Neb. 580, 76 N.W. 177.

RINER, Justice. BLUME, C. J., and KIMBALL, J., concur.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This case is before the court on direct appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Natrona County, dismissing an appeal undertaken to be prosecuted by the Midwest Hotel Company, appellant, from a ruling made by the State Board of Equalization, relative to the valuation of appellant's property for purposes of taxation.

It appears from the record that about June 22, 1927, the Board of County Commissioners of Natrona County, sitting as a Board of Equalization in tax matters, after hearing, had increased the valuation of certain property owned by appellant and listed for taxation in the city of Casper. From this action of the county board, Midwest Hotel Company appealed to the State Board of Equalization, and that body, after hearing held on July 26, 1927, at which evidence seems to have been taken and both the local board and appellant were represented by their counsel, entered its "judgment and order" of date August 9, 1927, materially reducing the valuation of appellant's property, but not entirely to its satisfaction. Accordingly the Midwest Hotel Company sought to have this decision of the State Board of Equalization reviewed by the District Court on appeal. That court, as already indicated, dismissed the appeal under the view that it was without jurisdiction to entertain such a proceeding.

The law which appellant invokes to sustain its position that the District Court was in error in making the order of dismissal complained of, is found in Section 1 of Chapter 56, Laws of 1923, which was an act relating to the duties of the State Board of Equalization and to amend and re-enact Section 2810 of Chapter 173, W. C. S. 1920. That part of the section pertinent here reads as follows:

"Provided that any person, persons, firm or corporation may have the right of appeal from the decision of the Board to the District Court of the County wherein the property is situated."

This clause follows language in the statute authorizing the State Board of Equalization, on proper notice to the parties interested, and upon due hearing had, to increase or decrease assessments of the taxpayers when their assessed property appears to have been overvalued or undervalued by the County Board of Equalization. It will be observed that there is no method whatsoever provided by the law whereby such an appeal is to be taken from the action of the State Board of Equalization to the District Court. Neither the time within which the appellate proceeding is to be commenced, nor the manner of its consideration by the reviewing court, are prescribed. Shall the District Court correct only errors of law alleged to be committed by the State Board of Equalization, or shall it retry the matter in its entirety, taking evidence anew, framing new issues and considering matters not submitted to the tribunal whose action is attacked? Shall the District Court undertake to substitute its judgment on questions thus brought before it for review for that of the State Board of Equalization, or shall the court be limited to keeping the board's action within the latter's proper sphere, as defined by the constitution and laws enacted pursuant thereto? Faced with these inquiries, the statute before us is wholly silent. In this connection it may be noted that we are not here considering a right of appeal given by the Wyoming constitution.

Problems of the sort suggested may not lightly be cast aside in so important a matter as taxation, the source of government revenue. An extended examination of the laws of many of the states of the Union, framed to deal with the subject now under consideration, establishes that even where the right of appeal to the courts from the action of a State Board of Equalization is granted a taxpayer--after the latter has had the benefit of the conclusions of a local assessor and a local equalization board--the remedy as so given is often highly circumscribed: The time allowed for appeal is short; the entire amount of the tax involved is required to be deposited in court; a review is permitted of only those matters which were presented to the board; frequently only errors of law may be examined; and the trial court's decision on such an appeal is made final. In brief, the proceedings are quite summary in character. The governing principle back of such statutes undoubtedly is that there should be as little interference as possible with the due and prompt collection of taxes, consistent with a proper regard for the rights of the taxpayer under existing law.

In an endeavor to meet the uncertain and indefinite character of the statute now relied upon...