Poppleton v. Yamhill County

• Decision Date: 27 January 1890
• Citation: Poppleton v. Yamhill County, 18 Or. 377, 23 P. 253 (Or. 1890)
• Parties: POPPLETON v. YAMHILL COUNTY.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

23 P. 253

18 Or. 377

POPPLETON v. YAMHILL COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 27, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Yamhill county; R.P. BOISE, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for the county of Yamhill, rendered upon a writ of review, issued out of that court, directed to the county court of said county, to review certain proceedings of assessment and taxation.The assessor of the county of Yamhill applied to Edgar Poppleton, the appellant herein, for a list of his taxable property for the year 1888.That thereupon the appellant furnished him a list purporting to be all of such property.Subsequently the board of equalization of the county caused a notice to be served upon appellant, requiring him to appear, and show cause why his assessment should not be increased.In accordance with the said notice, the appellant appeared, and filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings for the reason that no proper notice had been filed and served; but said board refused to act in the matter, and adjourned without day.The business was then taken to the county court, sitting as a board of equalization, and another notice to the same effect was by the said court caused to be served upon the appellant.In pursuance of said last notice the appellant appeared by counsel in said court, and filed another motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises, for the same reason assigned in the former motion.The county court overruled the motion, and the appellant then filed an answer setting forth what he claimed to be all his taxable property.No reply was filed to the answer, and thereupon the appellant filed a motion for judgment in the proceedings, that they be dismissed, which motion the county court denied.The matter was then heard on testimony and proofs, and said court found the following facts: "First.That previous to his assessment for the year 1888 said tax-payer had sent to Washington Territory money, to the amount of $4,500, to be loaned out in said territory by his agents there, and which said money was so loaned, before said assessment, on mortgage securities on land, and that the notes therefor were held in said territory, and never had been in this state.Second.That said notes are taxable in this state and county where said taxpayer resides."Whereupon said court decided as follows: "It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the assessment of said taxpayer be, and the same is hereby raised and increased the sum of $4,500."The said writ of review was issued out of the said circuit court to review the said decision.The said last-mentioned court, after hearing the case, decided that the grounds of error assigned in the petition for said writ were not well taken, and adjudged that the writ be dismissed at the cost of appellant and that the said decision of the county court be affirmed from which judgment the appeal herein was taken.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The notice given by the board of equalization, or county court sitting as such board, to a tax-payer, of a proposed increase in his assessment, need not specify the property to be added thereto.

.It is not necessary, where a tax-payer appears before a board of equalization in pursuance of a notice to show cause why corrections should not be made in his assessment, and files an answer in response to such notice, that a reply to such answer be filed.

In proceedings before a board of equalization to make corrections of the assessment of the property of a tax-payer the rules of practice in civil actions or suits do not apply.

The appellant, a resident of the county of Yamhill, Or., sent a sum of money to Washington Territory, to be loaned out through agents there, which said agents loaned accordingly, and took notes upon such loans, secured by mortgages on real property in the territory, retaining the notes and mortgages there, and which had never been in this state.Held, that the board of equalization of said county had no authority, under the statutes of this state, to include the said money, notes, or mortgages in the assessment of appellant's property for the purpose of taxation.

H. Hurley, for appellant.

J.E. Magers and H.H. Hewitt, for respondent.

THAYER, C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The notices to the appellant given by the board of equalization and county court, regarding the proposed increase of his assessment, were ample and sufficient; nor was any reply to the answer filed by appellant in response to the notice necessary.Proceedings for the equalizations of taxes are not governed by the rules of practice in civil cases, but are necessarily summary.The tax-payer is entitled to be notified of the proposed increase; and, however informal the notice may be, it will answer the purpose intended, as he will be very likely to get there, and usually will not stand upon the order of his going.Besides, the board will not be apt to get at the bottom of his affairs by the most diligent search and inquiry to which it may subject him.

The only matter that need be considered in the case is the right of the said county court to include in the appellant's list of taxable property the money, notes and mortgages he owned and held in the then territory, now state, of Washington.The question as to a right of government to tax chooses...