State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 26 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 18281,18281 |
| Citation | 123 Ind.App. 64,106 N.E.2d 812 |
| Parties | STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS et al. v. STANLEY et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Walter O. Lewis, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Oliver Zeiher, Indianapolis, of counsel), for appellants.
A. B. Chipman, Roy Sheneman, Plymouth, for appellees.
In our initial opinion herein we held that the action of the Marshall County Board of Review, wherein it concluded that the aggregate assessment of all lands and improvements thereon in the entire county as fixed by the township assessors was too high and reduced the same 'across the board' by 10 percent, was void as the procedure followed was not in meticulous conformity with that required by Burns' Stat., §§ 64-1201 and 64-1205. State Board of Tax Com'rs v. McDaniel, 1928, 199 Ind. 708, 160 N.E. 347; Hyland, Auditor v. Brazil Block Coal Company[123 Ind.App. 72] , 1891, 128 Ind. 335, 26 N.E. 672. Such being the situation we held that injunctions will not lie where, if granted, it will render effective an illegal act. 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, § 33, page 467.
In their petition for a rehearing the appellees contend that the controversial order involved is valid because (1) it was agreed upon unanimously by the board of review and the township assessors and, even if the assessors had no authority to cast their votes on the question, their participation did no harm but on the contrary manifested their approval of the 'cut' and thus the spirit and purpose, if not the letter, of § 64-1205, supra, was satisfied; and (2) said 'cut' was made under the authority of Acts of 1949, Ch. 225, § 5, p. 724, Burns' Stat., § 64-1019, note, 1951 Replacement, which provides as follows:
While we disagree with the appellees on their first proposition, there is merit in the contention that township assessors have a voice, under the Reassessment Act of 1949, in reducing the aggregate assessed valuation of property in the county in which they officiate and, if, in the present instance, the board of review had the power to act on March 14, 1950, their order of that date is effective.
The appellees' complaint alleges, and the evidence indicates, 'that the County Board of Review of Marshall County was in continuous session during the period provided by law from April 1, 1950, to July 5, 1950.' By this we presume that notice of the time, place and purpose of such session was given as provided by Burns' Stat., § 64-1201, and that the 'period provided by law' began on April 1, 1950, and continued until July 5, 1950. Sec. 9 of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scheub v. STATE BD. OF TAX COM'RS
...assessment of the whole county and order a new assessment with instructions to the assessors ...."), opinion on denial of reh'g, 123 Ind.App. 64, 106 N.E.2d 812, opinion on denial of trans., 231 Ind. 338, 108 N.E.2d A finding as to the township's aggregate assessment was a condition precede......
-
Scheub v. State Bd of Tax Comm'r, 49T10-9509-SC-00107
...the assessment of the whole county and order a new assessment with instructions to the assessors . . . ."), opinion on denial of reh'g, 106 N.E.2d 812, opinion on denial of trans., 108 N.E.2d 624. A finding as to the township's aggregate assessment was a condition precedent to any action by......
-
State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. Stanley
...here does not raise any adequate ground for transfer on the merits of the issues decided by the Appellate Court. 105 N.E.2d 830, and 106 N.E.2d 812. The petition does assert as a ground for transfer under Rule 2-23(4)(c) that the Appellate Court failed to give a statement in writing of each......