Oglesby v. Chandler
Decision Date | 06 June 1930 |
Docket Number | Civil 2976 |
Citation | 288 P. 1034,37 Ariz. 1 |
Parties | ED 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 |
Court | Arizona 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.
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:
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-
Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
...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
...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
...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
... ... 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 ... ...