Riggs v. Bd. of Com'rs of Sullivan Cnty.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1914
• Docket Number: No. 22,590.,22,590.
• Parties: RIGGS v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF SULLIVAN COUNTY.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

181 Ind. 172

103 N.E. 1075

RIGGS

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF SULLIVAN COUNTY.

No. 22,590.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 29, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Charles E. Henderson, Judge.

Action by James R. Riggs against the Board of Commissioners of Sullivan County on a claim rejected by the board. From a judgment for defendant, Riggs appeals. Reversed.

Transferred from the Appellate Court under section 1394, Burns' Ann. St. 1908.

See, also, 101 N. E. 832.

W. T. Douthitt, of Terre Haute, and M. A. Haddon, John W. Lindley, and Chas. H. Bedwell, all of Sullivan, for appellant. Charles D. Hunt and Gilbert W. Gambill, both of Sullivan, for appellee.

MYERS, J.

Appellant filed a claim before the board of commissioners of Sullivan county, which being refused, he appealed to the circuit court, filed an amended complaint in three paragraphs, to which demurrers were addressed and overruled as to the first and sustained as to the second and third. There was an answer in general denial, and an affirmative answer, and reply in general denial. At the trial the facts were agreed on and no motion for a new trial was filed, and the agreed facts are not in the record. Judgment was rendered against appellant, from which this appeal is prosecuted, the errors assigned being as to the ruling on the demurrers to the second and third paragraphs of amended complaint.

The substance of the allegations of the second paragraph are that on March 1, 1903, plaintiff was the owner of a described tract of land of 280 acres in Curry township, Sullivan county, which in 1903, between March 1st and June 1st, was duly and legally assessed for taxation by the township assessor at $10,165. That there was no objection to, or modification of, the assessment in any manner, or by any officer, officers, or board, except as hereinafter shown. That plaintiff continued to own the lands except the interest therein sold and conveyed by him as herein shown. That the sum so assessed as the taxable value of said lands was the full true cash value of said lands, and said assessment so fixed was the full true cash value of said lands, on March 1, 1903. That said assessment so fixed was, at the time it was made, in equal proportion to the assessment of other lands of the same nature and fertility in the same neighborhood, and said assessed valuation was not higher or lower than other lands of the same nature and fertility in the same neighborhood were assessed. And said assessment was just and equal, and was duly made by the township assessor of the township, and duly and legally returned to the county auditor prior to June 1, 1903, and was approved by the county board of review. That the said amount was the assessed valuation of said lands for taxing purposes and was the value upon which plaintiff was required to pay, and did pay, taxes for the year 1903. That, instead of allowing said value to stand as the assessed valuation of said lands for taxing purposes for the years 1904 and 1905, the auditor of said county unlawfully and wholly without right wrongfully placed upon the tax duplicate of Curry township an assessment against said lands amounting to $13,520, which said sum was by said auditor placed as an assessment against said lands as the value upon which the owners thereof were required to pay taxes for the years 1904 and 1905, thereby adding an increase of $3,360 to the assessed valuation of said lands for said years 1904 and 1905. That said increased valuation of said lands for taxing purposes came about, and was fixed and added to the original valuation made by said township assessor, in the following manner: That in February, 1904, plaintiff sold and conveyed by general warranty deed to the New Pittsburgh Coal & Coke Company all coal, fire clay, and minerals underlying the surface of said lands. That whatever coal, fire clay, and minerals existed beneath the surface of said lands were present thereunder on March 1, 1903, and at the time of the assessment of said lands for taxation in the year 1903. That prior to the time of the sale of said coal, fire clay, and minerals the auditor had prepared what was known and designated as the “mineral tax duplicate” for said county, and as soon as said coal, fire clay, and minerals were sold and conveyed, and immediately after the conveyance thereof, the auditor placed upon the mineral tax duplicate the name of said Coal & Coke Company, and placed upon said mineral tax duplicate opposite the name of said company a description of said lands so owned by plaintiff, and placed on the tax duplicate an assessment against said lands for the year 1904 in the sum of $49.50 for county taxes and $10.34 for state taxes, and again on January 17, 1905, $58.70 for county taxes, and $10.54 for state taxes, the taxes so levied being the taxes for each of said years 1904 and 1905 on $3,360 valuation. The state and county tax rates for 1904 and 1905 are separately alleged. That by reason of the fact that said $10,165, the original valuation of said lands, was allowed to stand as the assessed valuation of his said lands, after he had sold said coal, fire clay, and minerals, the plaintiff's said lands were assessed for state and county taxes for said years 1904 and 1905, upon said $10,165 valuation, $390.31, the same being set out for each fund for each year, which said sum of $390.31 plaintiff was required to pay and did pay. That said lands, by reason of said increased valuation being placed upon said mineral tax duplicate as aforesaid, were assessed for taxes for said years 1904 and 1905 in the aggregate $129.08 for state and county taxes, which are set out separately, and the Coal & Coke Company was required to, and did, pay them.

It is then alleged that the county board of review on July 9, 1903, refused to tax the mineral lands in that county, and entered an order declaring them nontaxable, and an appeal was taken by the county assessor to the State Board of Tax Commissioners, which board decided they were taxable, and fixed a valuation of $12 an acre upon them for purposes of taxation, and the auditor then placed that valuation on the mineral interests sold by plaintiff on the tax duplicates for 1904 and 1905, which valuation was placed on the tax duplicates by the auditor in August, 1903. That $12 per acre was, after said order was made by said State Board of Tax Commissioners, considered by the taxing officers of Sullivan county and by the auditor as the value of coal and minerals for taxing purposes. The original valuation of $10,165, as made and returned by the township assessor in 1903, was not reduced by said taxing officers at the time said increased valuation of $3,360 was placed against said lands, but, on the contrary, said $10,165 valuation and said $3,360 valuation were each carried up against said lands as the valuation of said lands for taxation for each of said years 1904 and 1905, and taxes on each of said valuations were levied and paid at the rates aforesaid, and in amounts aforesaid. That said valuation so placed against said lands in the name of said Coal & Coke Company, and on which taxes amounting to $129.08 were levied and assessed for 1904 and 1905, was no more than the full true cash value of the coal, fire clay, and minerals purchased by said company, and no more than the full true cash value thereof March 1, 1903, and the taxes paid by said company were no more than its just and fair proportion of said taxes levied on said original $10,165 valuation. That he at no time agreed with said company to pay all the taxes levied on said $10,165 valuation, as fixed and determined by said township assessor in 1903. That, when taxes were levied and assessed on said lands for the years 1904 and 1905, taxes were levied and assessed by said auditor on $13,520 valuation, and not on $10,165 valuation, and, so far as taxes were levied and assessed on more than $10,165 valuation for said years 1904 and 1905, the said taxes were wrongfully assessed. That said sum of $390.31, taxes levied and assessed against said lands on said original $10,165 valuation for said years 1904 and 1905, stood as a lien against...