Orr v. State Board of Equalization

• Citation: 28 P. 416,3 Idaho 190
• Parties: ORR v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
• Decision Date: 12 December 1891
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

28 P. 416

3 Idaho 190

ORR v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 12, 1891

CITIZEN OR TAXPAYER MAY BRING SUIT TO REVIEW ACTION OF EQUALIZATION BOARD-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS-CHANGING ASSESSED VALUATION.

TAXPAYER MAY BRING SUIT.-Every citizen and taxpayer of the state has the right to bring a proper suit to determine whether any board or officer having any authority connected with the levy and assessment of taxes has performed his duties as the law requires.

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION EXERCISES JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.-The state board of equalization, in exercising the functions conferred upon it by law, is exercising judicial functions.

STATE BOARD CANNOT CHANGE VALUATION UPON CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY.-The statute does not authorize the state board of equalization to raise or diminish the valuation put upon any class or classes of property, nor to fix the valuation of any class of property, but may raise or diminish the aggregate valuation of the property of any county by such percentage as justice may require.

(Syllabus by the court.)

PETITION of Samuel Orr for a writ of certiorari.

T. M Stewart and Smith & Smith, for Petitioner.

A taxpayer has the right to prosecute this action. (Maxwell v. Board, 53 Cal. 389; Collins v. Davis, 57 Iowa 256, 10 N.W. 643.) The remedy by certiorari is the proper one to set aside the action of the board of equalization where it is void for want of jurisdiction. (Rev Stats., sec. 4962 et seq.; People v. Goldtree, 44 Cal. 323-325; Mayor etc. v. Davenport, 92 N.Y. 604; Royce v. Jenney, 50 Iowa 676; Cooley on Taxation 758, 759.) The power of the state board is limited to an equalization of values as between counties, and must be made by comparing the values returned from the respective counties with each other, and they have no authority to alter or change the individual assessments or the assessed valuation of different classes of property. (Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194; People v. Sacramento Co., 59 Cal. 321; San Francisco R. R. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12; People v. Dunn, 59 Cal. 330; Baldwin v. Ellis, 68 Cal. 495, 9 P. 652.) The state board of equalization has nothing to do with the individual assessments, and cannot alter by either adding to or subtracting from the amounts assessed to various classes of property, or to individual taxpayers. (Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 579; Boyce v. Sebring, 66 Mich. 210, 33 N.W. 815; Silsbee v. Stockle, 44 Mich. 561, 7 N.W. 160, 367.) The property of the district must be treated in the aggregate by the state board. (Getchell v. Supervisors, 51 Iowa 108, 50 N.W. 574; Braden v. Trust Co., 25 Kan. 362; People v. Hadley, 76 N.Y. 337.)

George H. Roberts, Attorney General, for Respondent.

MORGAN, J. Sullivan, C. J., and Huston, J., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

This is the petition of Sample Orr, who is a citizen and taxpayer of Bingham county, and beneficially interested in the matter set forth in the petition. He alleges that the persons above named constitute the state board of equalization, and charges on information and belief that the said board, on the eighteenth day of September, 1891, and on subsequent days, having under consideration the value of real and personal property among the several counties and towns of the state of Idaho, the same being a judicial matter, and the said board exercising judicial functions in that behalf, without authority of law, and in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on it by law, added to the valuation of the sheep of said Bingham county an amount sufficient to fix the valuation thereof at the sum of two dollars and fifty cents per head. That said board, in like manner, and without authority of law, and in excess of its jurisdiction, on the twenty-first day of September, 1891, by order, added to the valuation of the cattle of said Bingham county, for purposes of taxation of the same, a percentage of ten per cent on the assessed valuation thereof, as returned by the assessor of said Bingham county. That the said board, sitting for the purpose hereinbefore set forth, without authority of law, and in excess of any jurisdiction conferred upon it, did order and adjudge that the Utah and Northern Railway, from Pocatello northward to the state line between Idaho and Montana, should, for the purposes of taxation, be a branch road, and that the valuation thereof should be reduced from $ 8,000 per mile to $ 5,000 per mile for each and every mile thereof. That said board, sitting as aforesaid, did on the twenty-first day of September, deduct from the valuation of the part of the Oregon Short Line Railway lying in said county, and from a portion of the Utah and Northern Railway lying south and east of Pocatello, as fixed by the assessor of said county, and not changed by any county board of equalization, the sum of $ 1,000 per mile for each and every mile thereof. That each and all of these changes so made were by the board of equalization certified to the auditor of said Bingham county by the secretary of said board. That affiant has no appeal from said action of said board, and has no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy at law. A writ of review is prayed for and issued, requiring the said board of equalization to return to the supreme court all the proceedings concerning said additions to and deductions from the assessed valuations of said property taken by and remaining before said board, and for other relief. Upon the return of this writ the matter came on for hearing in the supreme court. The first matter to be considered by the court is the question as to whether a citizen and taxpayer is authorized to bring this suit for the purpose of determining whether the state board of equalization has, in the matters herein set forth, acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law.

In the case of Maxwell v. Board, 53 Cal. 389, the board of supervisors of said county, without advertising for bids for printing, or giving any notice whatever that said board would entertain or receive sealed proposals or contracts for the county printing for Stanislaus county, entered into a contract with the "Stanislaus County Weekly News," by which said board agreed to advertise all the reports statements and advertisements of the officers of said county in the said "Stanislaus County Weekly News" at a rate fixed in said contract. Petitioner further alleged that the said contract was made without giving any notice, public or otherwise, that such printing would be let by the county through its board of supervisors to the lowest bidder, or would be let at all. All of which was contrary to law. After said order had been made by the board, the said contract entered into, the plaintiff in this case, Charles Maxwell, filed this petition as a citizen and taxpayer of the said county to annul and set aside said contract. The first question coming before the court for decision was as to whether the petitioner had the right to apply for the writ. The court, McKinstry, J., says, in discussing this question: "The neglect of a public officer to discharge a public duty may affect the interest of every taxpayer, but such result would, in ordinary cases, be uncertain, and dependent upon contingencies. When, however, a public board or officer has exceeded the limited powers conferred by law, and the direct consequence of such excessive use of authority must be to add to the burden of local taxation, it clearly appears that, unless the act ultra vires be annulled, each taxpayer must suffer injury common in character, but special in amount or degree. It would seem that one thus directly affected should be entitled to a remedy, and our conclusion is that the petitioner was authorized to commence his proceeding." It will be seen that in the above case it had not yet been determined that the contract for the printing described could have been let to any other parties for a less amount per annum, and therefore it is uncertain whether the burden to the taxpayer would be greater or less under this contract; but because the board had exceeded its jurisdiction in making the contract the court decides that a citizen and taxpayer is authorized to bring suit. The case at bar is precisely a parallel case. It is alleged that the state board of equalization, in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on it by law, has reduced the valuation of a certain class of property in said county, and has increased the valuation placed upon other certain classes of property by the local assessor. It is uncertain whether the burden of taxation to the individual taxpayer, not owning cattle or sheep, or a stockholder in a railroad corporation, is greater or less than it would have been had these changes not been made, nor, in our view, is it necessary for the taxpayer or this court to enter into a lengthy mathematical calculation to ascertain this fact. Large reduction has been made in the assessed valuation of railroad property in said county, and considerable increase has been made in the valuation of cattle and sheep. Whether the aggregate increase of valuation in the county is equal to the aggregate decrease in such valuation, or is greater or less, we are unable to say; but every citizen and taxpayer of the state has the right to insist that every board or officer having any authority connected with the levy and assessment of taxes shall, in the exercise of his duties, pursue the methods pointed out by the statute. (Maxwell v. Board, supra.) The state board of equalization, in exercising the functions conferred upon it by law, was exercising judicial functions. (People v. Goldtree, 44 Cal. 323; New York v. Davenport, 92 N.Y. 604.) It is alleged in the petition that said board, in performing its duties under...