State ex rel. Althen v. Klein

• Decision Date: 21 May 1914
• Docket Number: No. 100.,100.
• Citation: 147 N.W. 373,157 Wis. 308
• Parties: STATE EX REL. ALTHEN v. KLEIN, CITY CLERK, ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

157 Wis. 308

147 N.W. 373

STATE EX REL. ALTHEN

v.KLEIN, CITY CLERK, ET AL.

No. 100.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 21, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Manitowoc County; Michael Kirwan, Judge.

Submission of controversy by the State, on relation of Fred M. Althen, against Joseph L. Klein, City Clerk of Two Rivers, and others, to review the reduction of an assessor's valuation of a taxpayer's property. From a judgment denying relator the relief sought, he appeals. Affirmed.

In the year 1911, the assessor of the city of Two Rivers placed a valuation of $163,500 on the personal property of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company. That company appeared before the board of review and objected to the assessment as being excessive, and offered some testimony which it claims tended to sustain its contention. The board of review, deeming such evidence sufficient to warrant a reduction of the assessor's valuation, did in fact reduce it in the sum of $20,000. The plaintiff, who was the assessor for the city of Two Rivers in the year 1911, insisted that the reduction in the assessment of the personal property of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company made by the board of review was without warrant or authority in law, and that its action was illegal and void, and demanded of the city clerk that that officer disregard the reduction in making out the tax roll, and carry the assessment of the personal property of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company, as made by him, onto the tax roll. The city clerk refused to comply with the request on the ground that it was his legal duty to make out the tax roll in accordance with the valuations as finally determined by the board of review. These facts were agreed upon, and it was further stipulated that such statement of agreed facts be submitted to the court for the purpose of determining the validity of the action of the board of review, and for the purpose of ascertaining whether the city clerk should extend on the assessment and tax roll the valuation of the property of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company, as made by the assessor or as fixed by the board of review. The stipulation further recited that the parties agreed to be bound by the determination or judgment of the court, and that they consented and agreed that whatever the court should find to be a valid and legal assessment of said property might and should be extended on the tax and assessment rolls without further action. A second stipulation was entered into which in substance recited that it would be impossible to obtain a determination of the court on the question before it would be necessary to prepare the tax roll, and it was agreed that said clerk should make up such roll, carrying out the personal property tax against the Hamilton Manufacturing Company on the basis of the valuation fixed by the board of review; the Hamilton Manufacturing Company on its part agreeing that, if the court should determine the assessment of its property, as made by the assessor, to be the lawful assessment, it would pay to the city treasurer of the city of Two Rivers such sum as might be necessary to make the tax on its personal property equal to the tax which would have been assessed against it had the valuation fixed by the assessor been adopted by the board of review. Thereafter a third stipulation was entered into which was submitted to the court, to the following effect: “That the income tax of the Hamilton Manufacturing Company for the year 1911 was $5,670.24. That the personal property tax of said corporation for the year 1911 was $3,373.65. That the personal property tax of said corporation for the year 1912 was $3,642.24. That, in paying the personal property tax for 1912 to the city treasurer of the city of Two Rivers, said treasurer offset the personal property tax for that year against the income tax for the year 1911. That the income tax of said corporation for the...