Southern Oregon Co. v. Coos County

• Decision Date: 15 April 1901
• Citation: 39 Or. 185,64 P. 646
• Parties: SOUTHERN OREGON CO. v. COOS COUNTY et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

64 P. 646

39 Or. 185

SOUTHERN OREGON CO. v. COOS COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 15, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Coos county; J.C. Fullerton, Judge.

Proceedings by the Southern Oregon Company against Coos county and others. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendants appeal. Reversed.

S.H. Hazard, for appellants.

Rufus Mallory, for respondent.

WOLVERTON J.

J.A James, assessor of Coos county for the year 1893, assessed the property of the plaintiff, consisting of a large amount of real estate, including a sawmill, buildings and improvements, and considerable personal property, comprising a steamer, rolling stock of a railroad, logs, lumber, money notes and accounts, at the sum of $463,791. This assessment was reduced by the board of equalization and the county court to $332,978. The tax having been levied, and the roll together with a proper warrant, placed in the hands of the sheriff, directing and requiring him to collect such tax by demanding payment of the persons charged in said roll, and by levy and sale of the property, if necessary, the plaintiff, after tendering what is alleged to be all the taxes rightfully due upon a reasonable and just valuation instituted this suit to enjoin the collection of the balance of the tax so levied. The complaint alleged that the assessor made a pretended assessment of the plaintiff's property, giving a list thereof, but the valuations extended, aggregating $332,978, are such as were affixed thereto after the boards of equalization had equalized the same; which is followed by a list prepared by plaintiff with the alleged true cash values extended, aggregating $222,850. Continuing, it further alleges that in making said assessment the said James, as such assessor, did not assess the property of the plaintiff in equal, uniform, or ratable proportion to the assessment of like property similarly situated, and of equal value, in said county, but, on the contrary, he unlawfully, wrongfully, and fraudulently discriminated against the plaintiff, and placed a valuation upon its said property in excess of its true cash value as indicated by the lists alluded to, and more than upon the property of equal value and similarly situated assessed and valued by him. Beyond this, some irregularities in the assessment proceedings are complained of. The answer puts in issue the alleged true cash value stated in the complaint, and denies specifically the allegations of fraud on the part of the assessor and of irregularities in the proceedings. It admits, however, that the assessor may have assessed the plaintiff's real estate for more than its true cash value, but sets forth affirmatively that the board of equalization and the county court, upon the application of the plaintiff, after hearing proofs touching the matter, reduced such assessments so that none of the plaintiff's property was assessed above its value, or for more than like property was assessed in Coos county. Other issues were tendered, but they are not material to the controversy.

The testimony adduced at the trial tended strongly to show that the assessor acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and without the exercise of his honest judgment, in fixing the valuations of plaintiff's property. Indeed, this may be conceded. It is further shown that the plaintiff appeared before the county board of equalization when it met on the fourth Monday in September, 1893, and applied for a reduction of its assessment. The hearing was continued to an adjourned session of the board held in October, at which time the plaintiff produced a large amount of testimony relative to values as it pertained to its property, which was taken down in shorthand subsequently extended, and offered and admitted in evidence herein. What took place during the time of these proceedings and at such as were held later is related by D.L. Watson, who was then county judge, and by virtue of his office was a member of the board of equalization. He says: "On the 16th day of October we met as a board of equalization, and proceeded to hear claims for reductions of taxes, and to equalize tax assessments for that year, until, I think, the 22d or 23d of October, during which time we took a great deal of testimony of different parties. The plaintiff was present by its secretary, R.E. Shine, and its general manager,--I think Mr. Smith was there,--and by its attorney, John A. Gray. They furnished the board with what they claimed to be a statement of valuations that should be placed upon its property. The testimony offered was principally for the purpose and with the view of reducing it to about what they claimed it should be assessed at. The board did not agree. There was the clerk; on matters of reducing the assessments he stood in with the assessor, and sustained the assessment. My record in the matter, as the record will show, was in a great many cases in favor of reducing the tax. We finally, after sitting from about the 16th to the 22d day of October, came to the conclusion that the whole assessment of Coos county was too high, as property was then dropping, and the prices paid for property were not as large as the year before. So we made a horizontal cut on all property of 25 per cent. except goods, wares, merchandise, money, notes and accounts. There were some small corrections and some reductions made before this on some property of the plaintiff, but it did not amount to much. At the January term of court of 1894 the plaintiff appeared by R.E. Shine and John A. Gray, its attorney, and asked to have the county court re-examine and correct its assessment. The plaintiff at the time submitted its petition, and also the testimony that had been taken by W.U. Douglas at the time it appeared before the board in October for the purpose of reducing its tax. The county court, as a board of equalization, again took up the matter of the assessment of the plaintiff and numerous others, and made such reductions on the valuation of their property as we thought best. At that time the county board consisted of S.J. McCloskey, D.E. Stitt, and myself. We examined the assessment so far as we had time to do it, and we found in some instances where property had been, we thought, assessed lower than it should be; but in many instances we found it assessed at a far greater amount than it should be. We had no time then to give notice, and raise the few assessments or undervaluations, so we let those go, and made such reductions as we thought best on those applicants which appeared before us, among which was the Southern Oregon Company. *** It was my opinion, from the...