People v. Ames
| Decision Date | 17 January 1900 |
| Citation | 60 P. 346,27 Colo. 126 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. AMES, County Assessor. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Original application by the people of the state of Colorado against Willard L. Ames, county assessor of Arapahoe county, for a writ of mandamus to compel him to comply with an order of the state board of equalization. Dismissed.
In 1891 the legislature, in prescribing the duties of the state board of equalization, provided: 'Said board shall ascertain whether the valuation of real or personal property in each county bears a fair relation or proportion to the valuation in all other counties of the state of the same class or kind of property, and on such examination, they may increase or diminish the valuation of any or either kind, class or grade of property in any county, as much as in their judgment may be necessary to produce a fair and just valuation between all the valuations of the same kind, class or grade of property in all the different counties of the state, but in no instance shall they reduce the aggregate valuation of all the counties below the aggregate valuation as returned by the assessors of the several counties.' Laws 1891, p. 294, § 5 (3 Mills' Ann. St. § 3846).
The late general assembly passed the following act:
The constitution of the state contains the following provisions Article 10, § 15. The constitution also provides (article 10, § 3): 'All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws, which shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal.'
The state board of equalization, purporting to have adjusted and equalized valuations of property between the several counties, which resulted in certain changes in the assessments, as returned by the respective county assessors, directed such officials to make the alterations in their respective assessment rolls necessary to conform to the action and direction of the board. This order respondent refused to obey. To compel him to comply therewith, this proceeding was instituted, and an alternative writ of mandamus issued. From the writ and return it appears that the board, in equalizing and adjusting property valuations between the several counties, has increased and diminished the valuations of certain kinds, classes, and grades of property in Arapahoe county, varying in increase from 2 to 54 per cent., and in decrease from 7 1/2 to 14 per cent. Respondent justifies his refusal to comply with the order of the board upon the ground that it had no authority to adjust and equalize the valuations of property in Arapahoe county in the manner it did. Counsel for petitioner contends that the action of the board is in all respects regular and legal, and, even if not, respondent cannot question its action by refusing to make the required changes on the tax roll necessary to comply with its order.
David M. Campbell, Atty. Gen., Calvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dan B. Carey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Cass E. Herrington and Chas. G. Clement, for respondent.
James W. McCreery and Frank J. Annis, amici curiae.
The decision of this case depends upon the determination of these propositions: (1) Does the act of 1899 repeal section 5 of the act of 1891? (2) Did the board of equalization regularly pursue its authority in equalizing and adjusting the valuations of property in Arapahoe county in the manner it did? (3) If not, can respondent raise that question in this proceeding?
1. The act of 1899 empowers the board, as an incident to equalization, to increase or decrease the aggregate valuation of all taxable property in the state, not to exceed 5 per cent., whereas the act of 1891 expressly prohibits any change in this respect. The latter also provides that the board, in effecting an equalization of the aggregate value of the property in the counties of the state, may increase or diminish the valuation of any kind, class, or grade of property in any county, as much as may be necessary to produce a just valuation between the valuations of the same kind, class, or grade of property in the several counties. In this particular the act of 1899 is entirely different; for it prescribes no rules which the board shall follow in equalizing and adjusting values of property between the several counties, save and except that it shall do so in such manner as to effect this result. Section 5 of the earlier, and section 2 of the later, act both refer to the same subject. The last covers the whole subject-matter of the first; does not purport to amend it; invests the board with new powers; plainly shows that it was intended as a substitute for the earlier section; and expressly provides that all parts of acts in conflict with it are repealed. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that section 2 of the act of 1899 operates as a repeal of section 5 of the act of 1891. Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U.S. 206, 10 S.Ct. 527, 33 L.Ed. 879; Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 N.H. 295; City of Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294; Devine v. Board, 84 Ill. 590; Breitung v. Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 485, and authorities cited in note 4.
2. The constitution provides that taxes are to be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and are to be levied under a plan which shall secure a just valuation for the purposes of taxation. One authority levies a tax for county purposes, the other for the maintenance of the state. To secure a uniformity in taxation, there must be a uniformity in valuation of the subjects upon which the tax is levied. To attain this end, boards of equalization have been provided one object of which is to so equalize assessments as to bring the different assessments of the several parts of a taxing district to the same relative standard, so that no one part will be compelled to pay a disproportionate share of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Pitcher
...has heretofore held that they could not equalize by ordering an increase in particular classes of property in a county. People v. Ames, 27 Colo. 126, 60 P. 346. Yet this is result of this decision, for it allows the Board to increase the value of all classes of property in a county except p......
-
Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co. v. The Territorial Board of Equalization of Territory of Arizona
... ... Co. v. Moore, 121 U.S. 558, 7 S.Ct. 1334, 30 L.Ed. 1022 ... The ... supreme court of Colorado decided the case of People v ... Lothrop, 3 Colo. 428, in 1877. In that case the court, ... in construing a statute almost identical with our own, held ... that the state ... People v. Lothrop, 3 Colo ... 428. The supreme court of Colorado has affirmed this decision ... in a recent case. People v. Ames, 27 Colo. 126, 60 ... P. 346. See, also, State v. Fortune, 24 Mont. 154, ... 60 P. 1086; State v. Equalization Board, 18 Mont. 473, 46 P ... ...
-
South Spring Ranch & Cattle Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization.
...in the hands of the state board is more unsafe than in the hands of assessors is not pointed out, nor can we understand. In People v. Ames, 27 Colo. 126, 60 Pac. 346, a new statute had been passed in 1899, which repealed previous legislation, and which provided that the State Board of Equal......
-
South Spring Ranch & Cattle Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
...in the hands of the state board is more unsafe than in the hands of assessors is not pointed out, nor can we understand. In People v. Ames, 27 Colo. 126, 60 P. 346, a new had been passed in 1899, which repealed previous legislation, and which provided that the State Board of Equalization sh......