Reynolds v. Bowen

• Decision Date: 22 June 1894
• Docket Number: 16,577
• Parties: Reynolds, Auditor, et al. v. Bowen, Administrator
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

37 N.E. 962

138 Ind. 434

Reynolds, Auditor, et al. v. Bowen, Administrator

No. 16,577

Supreme Court of Indiana

June 22, 1894

Original Opinion of March 6, 1894, Reported at: 138 Ind. 434.

OPINION

Howard, J.

The appellee contends that the decision in this case is in conflict with the decision of the court in the case of Florer, Treas., v. Sheridan, Admx., 137 Ind.28, 36 N.E. 365.

That decision intended to go no further than the decision of Florer, Treas., v. Sherwood Admr., 128 Ind. 495, 28 N.E. 71, on which it was in part based. Of that and other like cases it was said, in the principal opinion: "We do not understand that these cases go any further than to hold that under the tax law of 1881 the county auditor, acting under his general authority to assess omitted property, has no right to increase the valuation of property returned by the assessor."

In Florer, Treas., v. Sherwood, Admr. supra, the description of the omitted property was held insufficient upon which to base an assessment, because it was expressly admitted "that a part of the property belonging to the party has been listed and assessed, and that the property which was listed and assessed, as well as that which it is claimed was not listed and assessed, all belonged to precisely the same classes and is all described in the answer by the same words." In other words, the auditor was attempting a revaluation of property already assessed, instead of an assessment of omitted property.

In this case there is no such confusion of description; but the auditor says that the property which he proposes to assess as omitted property "has wholly escaped taxation."

The description includes "moneys on hand or on deposit," and the case of Florer v. Sherwood, Admr., supra, distinctly says that, "so far as money alone is concerned, a dollar should, of course, be valued as a dollar, and is sufficiently described and valued when the amount is stated." This statement is directly in support of the principal opinion in this case.

The auditor's attention, in this case, was directed to the case of Woll, Treas., v. Thomas, Admr., 1 Ind.App. 232, 27 N.E. 578, according to which he was told he "ought to regard this omitted property as simply an undervaluation of the property, which was duly listed for taxation." Very correctly he answered, "While I am no lawyer, I do not so understand that case." The court in that case said: "Our conclusion is, that the auditor had no right, under the law in force at that time, to assess any property as omitted, except distinct, definite, and recognizable articles which had not been listed and properly appraised for taxation by the assessor."

The auditor in this case, after a long and painstaking investigation, found "distinct, definite, and recognizable articles" of omitted property, "which had not been listed and properly appraised for taxation by the assessor," being "moneys, money loaned and credits," amounting in all to over a million and a half of dollars; and that "it clearly appears from the evidence that the notes and mortgages which are of record in this and the surrounding counties are of the value shown by the records."

It is somewhat difficult to apprehend the position of appellee on this point. Counsel say: "We have never contended that there should be a specific description of the omitted property in the notice; but, on the contrary, have contended and still contend, that there must be a general description sufficient to advise the owner of the claim of the...