Oglesby v. Chandler

Decision Date06 June 1930
Docket NumberCivil 2976
Citation288 P. 1034,37 Ariz. 1
PartiesED OGLESBY, as Tax Assessor in and for Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendant-Appellant, ARTHUR C. LUHRS and I. E. BROWN, Interveners-Appellants, v. A. J. CHANDLER and ARTHUR E. PRICE, in Their Own Behalf and in Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Affirmed.

Mr Henry J. Sullivan, Mr. William C. Eliot and Mr. Austin O'Brien, for Appellant Oglesby.

Messrs Struckmeyer & Jennings, for Appellant Luhrs.

Mr. I J. Lipsohn, for Appellant Brown.

Mr Frank W. Beer, Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, Messrs. Alexander, Silverthorne & Van Spanckeren, Mr. M. J. Dougherty and Mr. G. A. Rodgers, for Appellees.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Maricopa county enjoining Ed Oglesby as tax assessor from extending upon the tax-roll of said county those certain tax valuations and assessments upon the taxable property of the county transmitted to him by the Board of Tax Survey.

Because of the extreme importance of an early determination of the issues involved in this case, affecting as they do the validity of the tax assessments of the fourteen counties of the state for the year 1930, this court has set aside its usual method of procedure so far as possible in order that the issues be presented and adjudicated with the greatest promptness consistent with accuracy. For the same reason, instead of confining ourselves in this opinion to a consideration of the questions absolutely essential to a determination of the specific issues presented on the record, we shall go further than is our custom in suggesting the correct solution of matters which may necessarily arise as a result of our decision.

The ninth legislature of the state of Arizona enacted chapter 46 of the Session Laws of 1929, commonly known as House Bill 127, and by which name we shall refer to it hereinafter. The first eight sections of the bill affect the assessment of the state, the remaining portion dealing with the collection of delinquent taxes. It is with the part referring to the assessment, and that alone, that this case is concerned; and, the two matters being separable, we need not consider for any purpose that part providing for the collection of delinquent taxes. The bill, so far as is material to the consideration of this case, reads as follows:

"Section 1. There is hereby created a permanent state board to be known as the Board of Tax Survey, the same to consist of three members, each of whom shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars to be paid out of the State Treasury as the salaries of other state officers are paid.

"The Board shall take office immediately upon this act becoming effective and shall immediately proceed to institute a scientific survey of all taxable property and classes of property throughout the State, including all taxable property and classes of property situate or found in any city, town, or other municipal corporation or legal subdivision of the State. The survey shall be made for the purpose of (a) placing upon the tax rolls in every county of the State, all property of every kind and character, subject to taxation under existing provisions of law; (b) extending on the tax rolls in every county of the State with respect to all taxable property and classes of property the valuation for tax purposes as now required by law.

"Section 2. The first survey to be made by the Board shall be completed on or before the first day of January, 1930. During each five year period succeeding the first day of January, 1930, the Board shall conduct a new survey of all taxable property and classes of property in the State and the property and the valuations found shall be placed and extended upon the tax rolls as hereinafter provided. The procedure established for the survey to be completed January 1st, 1930, shall govern subsequent surveys made by the Board.

"Section 3. Immediately upon taking office, the Board shall employ a qualified person to conduct said survey provided that supervision of the survey shall always be exercised by the Board. The Board shall meet at least every sixty days during the time said survey is in progress with the person conducting the same for the purpose of directing the survey and securing information as to the nature and progress of the survey. The deliberations of the Board and the information secured in connection with the survey shall not constitute a public record, but shall remain in the private files of the Board until the results of said survey shall be communicated to the several county assessors of the State as hereinafter provided.

"Section 4. On or before the first day of May, 1930, the Board shall transmit to the several county assessors of the State, all tax valuations found by it upon specific property or classes of property, and prior to the date fixed by law for the filing of the assessment rolls with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the assessors in each county shall extend upon the assessment rolls the valuations as found and transmitted by the Board of Tax Survey. The valuation so found and transmitted by the Board shall supersede any valuations theretofore found by said assessors or extended upon the assessment rolls.

"In the event the Board shall find that any property subject to taxation as provided by law is not set forth on the assessment roll of the county in which said property is situate or found, then a description of said property shall be transmitted to the county assessor of the county in which said property is situate or found, and said county assessor shall include said property upon the assessment roll as described by the Board and at the valuation fixed by the Board.

"The taxability of, or the valuation of any property or classes of property found by the Board, may be reviewed before the county board of equalization, the state board of equalization, and in the courts in the same manner and to the same extent as now provided by law, where the taxability or valuation of property or classes of property is fixed by the county assessor.

"Section 5. In the event that any property found to be taxable by the Board of Tax Survey shall be stricken from the rolls by the County Board of Equalization as not subject to taxation, or in the event the valuation found by the Board of Tax Survey shall be modified by the County Board of Equalization, then the clerk of the County Board of Equalization in transmitting an abstract of assessment roll to the State Board of Equalization, as required by law, shall endorse upon said abstract of the assessment roll a notation indicating the property or valuation as fixed by the Board of Tax Survey, and the State Board of Equalization shall restore said property so stricken or said valuation so modified to the assessment roll unless in the judgment of the State Board of Equalization the inclusion of such property or such valuation upon the assessment roll is clearly erroneous and not according to law.

"Section 6. The Board shall have the right in its discretion to employ a tax valuation expert to act as assistant to such person as the Board shall put in charge of the survey; and to employ such stenographic and clerical assistance as shall be required to carry out the provisions of this act.

"The Board in its discretion shall have the right acting through any or all of its members or through any agent or employee designated for the purpose, to examine all property subject to taxation in the State; to hold hearings at any places in the State as to the taxability or value for tax purposes of any property or classes of property; to require the attendance of witnesses and to administer oaths; to require the production of documents or other writings; to secure from any taxpayer, individual or corporation, a sworn statement as to the nature, amount, value, and situs of the property subject to taxation in which such taxpayer may have any interest.

"Section 7. The members of the State Tax Commission as at present or hereafter composed, shall constitute the Board of Tax Survey. The legislature adopting this act hereby declares that the jurisdiction, authority, and duties vested in and imposed upon the Board of Tax Survey are intended to be independent of and in addition to the jurisdiction, authority, and duties in this act vested in and imposed upon the State Tax Commission and the State Board of Equalization. The legislature adopting this act hereby declares that the provisions hereof relating to the duties of the Board of Tax Survey, County Assessors, County Boards of Equalization, the State Board of Equalization and taxpayers, except where discretionary authority is herein specifically provided, are mandatory. . . .

"Section 8. The sum of thirty thousand dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act relating to the Board of Tax Survey, its jurisdiction, authority, and duties."

The bill passed the lower House by a vote of forty-five to three, and the Senate without a dissenting vote, and was duly approved by the Governor.

In the early part of May, 1930, A. J. Chandler and Arthur E. Price hereinafter called plaintiffs, in their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought suit against Ed Oglesby as tax assessor in and for Maricopa county, hereinafter called defendant. The amended complaint on which the case was determined is voluminous, and we summarize it, except where an exact quotation therefrom seems advisable....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 12 Septiembre 1967
    ...1964). Traditionally, parties have been divided into categories of 'proper,' 'necessary,' and 'indispensable.' See Oglesby v. Chandler, 37 Ariz. 1, 288 P. 1034 (1930) and Clarke, Code Pleading (2d ed. 1947), pp. 358--362, 365--367, 380--386. It appears to be the law of this jurisdiction tha......
  • Borden v. Director, State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation, 338
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Octubre 1973
    ...v. American News Co., 6 A.D.2d 1028, 178 N.Y.S.2d 279; Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 U.S. 224, 18 S.Ct. 98, 42 L.Ed. 444; Oglesby v. Chandler, 37 Ariz. 1, 288 P. 1034; Tumulty v. District of Columbia, 69 App.D.C. 390, 102 F.2d ...
  • Standage v. White Mountain Vacation Vill. Subdivision Ass'n
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 26 Diciembre 2013
    ...Amendments. "Parties to an action are divided into three classes: Proper, necessary, and indispensable." Oglesby v. Chandler, 37 Ariz. 1, 17, 288 P. 1034, 1040 (1930); see note to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 19. The indispensability of parties is a question of law which we review de novo. Gerow v. Cov......
  • Maricopa County, Arizona v. Fox Riverside theatre Corporation
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1941
    ... ... 415] by a taxpayer in ... a case of this kind. We think the present form of procedure ... is sustained by Oglesby v. Chandler, 37 ... Ariz. 1, 288 P. 1034, and State v. Cull, 32 ... Ariz. 532, 260 P. 1023 ... Since ... this procedure was permissible ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT