Singer Mfg. Co. of New Jersey v. City and County of Denver

• Decision Date: 07 June 1909
• Citation: 103 P. 294,46 Colo. 50
• Parties: SINGER MFG. CO. OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

103 P. 294

46 Colo. 50

SINGER MFG. CO. OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 7, 1909

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1909.

Error to District Court, Denver County; Chas. McCall, Judge.

Objections by the Singer Manufacturing Company of New Jersey to the assessment made against it by the City and County of Denver. The assessor overruled the objections, and the company appealed to the county court, where the decision of the assessor was affirmed, and the company brings error. Affirmed.

R. H. Gilmore, for plaintiff in error.

William B. Tebbetts, for defendant in error.

MUSSER J.

In 1904 the Singer Manufacturing Company returned a schedule of its property for taxation to the county assessor of the city and county of Denver. That schedule does not appear in the record. In the written objections to the assessment filed by the company with the assessor it is said that it appears from a notice sent to the company by the assessor that in this schedule the company had made no return under the item, 'Other property not enumerated,' and the assessor had amended the scheudle by assessing under this item an amount of $2,500, and that in the schedule under the item 'Money, notes and credits' the company had returned $2,500, and the assessor had amended this item by increasing it to $60,000. As the company does not deny that it had returned for taxation $2,500 under the item 'Money, notes and credits,' it must be presumed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the notice or statement which the law requires the assessor to mail in such cases was correct, and that the company did return this item of $2,500 under 'Money, notes and credits.' Pursuant to section 94 of revenue act of 1902 (section 5640 Rev. St. 1908), the company stated in writing its objections to the assessment of other property not enumerated in the schedule and to the assessment of money, notes, and credits. The objection urged is the one against the assessment of $60,000 in money, notes, and credits. A hearing was had before the assessor, and the assessor, after hearing evidence, overruled the objections, and, as the statute requires, stated briefly in writing the grounds of his refusal to sustain the same, and, among other things, the assessor stated that 'the total assessed valuation of $60,000 on the item of money, notes, and credits is the true and just valuation as far as can be ascertained by him, as compared with other values fixed by him as assessor, upon other similar assessed property, similarly situated in said county.' Thereupon the company appealed from the decision of the assessor. As the statute provides for such an appeal to the district or county court, the company chose to take its appeal to the latter court. Upon a hearing the county court affirmed the decision of the assessor, and, from the county court, the company brought the matter here on error.

The question is raised whether all things were done which the statute requires to be done before an appeal from the assessor will be allowed. As the parties do not raise the question of the jurisdiction of the county court to entertain the appeal if properly taken, it will be assumed for the purposes of this case only that the appeal was properly taken, and that the county court had jurisdiction to entertain it. In the county court the company presented no...