State Bd. of Equalization v. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co.
Decision Date | 02 February 1914 |
Parties | STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION et al. v. BI-METALLIC INV. CO.. et al. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1914.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George W Allen, Judge.
Injunction by the Bi-Metallic Investment Company, a corporation, and Clair J. Pitcher, as Commissioner of Finance and Ex Officio Assessor of the City and County of Denver, against the State Board of Equalization and Elias M. Ammons and others, as members, the Colorado Tax Commission and John B. Phillips and others, as members. From a judgment for plaintiffs defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, injunction dissolved, and suit dismissed.
Fred Farrar, Atty. Gen., Norton Montgomery and Frank C. West Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
Benedict & Phelps, of Denver, for defendants in error.
By order of the trial court, plaintiffs in error and Clair J Pitcher, as county assessor, were enjoined, at the suit of defendants in error, from taking any steps whatever to enforce or carry out any order, resolution, direction, or action of the State Board of Equalization or the Colorado Tax Commission whereby the assessed valuations of the property of defendants in error, and others in like situation, were increased for the purpose of taxation for the year 1913 over and above the assessed valuations placed thereon by the county assessor for said year. The State Board of Equalization and the Colorado Tax Commission, of the parties defendant below, sued out, and prosecute this writ of error from that judgment. At the time the cause was filed here there was pending in this court an original case entitled the People of the State of Colorado ex rel. State Board of Equalization and Colorado Tax Commission, Petitioner, v. Clair J. Pitcher, Commissioner of Finance and Ex Officio Assessor of the City and County of Denver, Respondent, involving the validity of the identical acts of the several public boards and officers involved in this suit. Thereupon it was stipulated and agreed by the parties litigant herein that this cause should be determined upon the briefs filed and arguments made in the aforesaid original case. The decision in that case (138 P. 509) upholds the validity of the acts in question, and directs the performance of the acts which the trial court enjoined. This necessarily requires a reversal of the judgment here involved.
However as the recent case of Blomquist et al., Idaho Tax Commission, v. Board of Commissioners of Bannock County (Idaho) 137 P. 174, is said to be in direct conflict with the conclusions reached in People ex rel. v. Pitcher, supra, it is not improper to briefly consider the former case herein, and supplement, by additional argument, our views in the latter case. In doing this, it is essential to keep in mind that the legislative act under consideration in the Idaho case (Idaho S. L. 1913, p. 167) has no similarity to the Colorado act under consideration in the Pitcher Case, except solely that the two acts designate the agencies...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Hively
...circumstances such as those at bar, establish enfringement of his constitutional rights. This was in State Board of Equalization v. Bi-Mettalic Investment Co., 56 Colo. 512, 138 P. 1010. Both of these decisions were reviewed and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bi-Metta......
-
Idaho State Tax Com'n v. Staker
...to be noted that the Colorado court in Hively largely reviews, relies upon, and quotes extensively from its own 1914 cases, Bi-Metallic, 138 P. 1010 (1914), and People v. Pitcher, 56 Colo. 343, 138 P. 509 (1914). I have already pointed out that the United States Supreme Court in Bi-Metallic......
-
People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Pitcher
... ... Constitutions. Colo. Tax Commission v. Pitcher, supra; State ... Board of Equalization v. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co., 56 Colo. 512, ... 138 P. 1010, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United ... States December 20, 1915 (239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 ... ...
-
Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization
...property in Denver 40 per cent. The order was sustained and the suit directed to be dismissed by the supreme court of the state. 56 Colo. 512, 138 Pac. 1010. See 56 Colo. 343, 138 Pac. 509. The plaintiff is the owner of real estate in Denver, and brings the case here on the ground that it w......