State ex rel. Cunningham v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 02 October 1897
• Docket Number: 860
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CUNNINGHAM ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. THOMAS ET AL., STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DEFENDANTS

50 P. 615

16 Utah 86

STATE EX REL. CUNNINGHAM ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. THOMAS ET AL., STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DEFENDANTS

No. 860

Supreme Court of Utah

October 2, 1897

Application by the State, on relation of J. A. Cunningham and others, for a writ of certiorari to J. J. Thomas and others composing the State Board of Equalization. Judgment for relators.

Ordered set aside.

E. B Critchlow and John M. Zane, for plaintiffs:

It has been held that the constitutional provision similar to ours distributes the power to assess and the power to raise or lower the assessment in such manner-as to give to the county board of equalization the power to raise or lower individual assessments within the county, and to give to the state board of equalization the power to raise or lower the valuation of the county taken as a whole. Wells, Fargo Company v. Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194; People v. Supervisors, 59 Cal. 321; Railroad Co. v. State Board, 60 Cal. 12; State v. Vaile, 122 Mo. 33.

This same principle will be found in the provisions, statutory and constitutional, of other states. Oregon Co., v. Croisan, 30 P. 220; Desty on Taxation, 496; Spaulding v. Hill, supra.

A. C. Bishop, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Brown, for defendants:

We have been unable to find any adjudicated cases based upon constitutional and legislative provisions similar to our own, but as bearing upon the question, by analogy, the court's attention is called to the following cases. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194; People v. Dunn, 59 Cal. 328; Getchel v. Supervisors Polk Co., 51 Iowa 107; Black v. McGonigle, 103 Mo. 193; Mayor, etc., of N.Y. v. Davenport, 92 N.Y. 604; Hall v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; Harvy v. Board of Supervisors, etc., 44 Iowa 203.

BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., concurs in the judgment. MINER, J., concurs.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.:

This is an original application in this court, for a writ of certiorari to command the state board of equalization to certify and return to the supreme court all the proceedings concerning a certain order of the board, whereby the assessment of the property in Salt Lake county for the year 1897 was to be increased. The writ was issued, and the board filed its answer, and demurred to the petition. A demurrer to the answer was also filed. Thereupon the case was argued and presented on its merits, and will likewise be considered.

The most important question to be determined is whether the state board of equalization has the power so to raise the total valuation of the property of any county in the state as to increase the aggregate valuation of all the counties of the state, as returned, to the state board, by the several county assessors and county boards of equalization. On behalf of the relators it is contended that the powers of the state board are limited, by provisions of the constitution and of statutes, to an adjustment and equalization of the total valuation of the several counties, as fixed by the assessors and county boards, and that it has no power to increase the aggregate valuation of the property of the state so placed upon it. For the defendant board it is insisted that it has power to raise or lower the total valuation of the property of the state, so as to render the assessment equal and uniform in the several counties, and make it conform to the true value, in money, of the property assessed.

The provisions of the constitution, so far as material to the decision of this case, are as follows: In section 2 of article 13 it is provided that "all property in the state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, or under this constitution, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law." Under this provision all taxable property must be assessed and taxed "in proportion to its value." It will be noticed that "value" is here referred to in a comparative manner, and is to be "ascertained as provided by law." The word "proportion" doubtless has reference to sameness or likeness in value of property; that is, all property must be taxed at the same relative value. If this provision were to be considered by itself, it might be contended with some force that the legislature had power to provide that all property should be assessed at a basis less than its full value, and this might still be considered as "in proportion to its value." The real intent, however, of the framers of the constitution, is made more manifest in section 3 of article 13, which contains this language: The legislature shall provide by law a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation on all property in the state, according to its value in money, and shall prescribe by general law such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property; so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her, or its property." This provision is closely related to the one in section 2, and directs the legislature not only to provide a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, so that every subject owning property shall pay the same rate of tax as every other such subject, but also declares that all property shall be assessed at a basis which shall be "according to its value in money." It is evident that the term "according to its value in money" means that all property shall be valued, for the purposes of assessment, as near as is reasonably practicable, at its full cash value; in other words, that the valuation for assessment and taxation shall be, as near as reasonably practicable, equal to the cash price for which the property valued would sell in open market, for this is doubtless the correct test of the value of property. The manifest intention is that all taxable property shall bear its just proportion of the burdens of taxation. These two sections of the constitution harmonize with each other; and, by reading and considering them together, it becomes clear that all taxable property within this state must be assessed and taxed on a valuation fixed at its actual cash value, or as near such value as is reasonably practicable. In order, it would seem, to guard against unjust valuations which might result from whatever cause, and to secure greater uniformity and equality in taxation, it was provided in section 11 of the same article as follows: "Until otherwise provided by law, there shall be a state board of equalization, consisting of the governor, state auditor, state treasurer, secretary of state, and attorney general; also, in each county in this state, a county board of equalization, consisting of the board of county commissioners of said county. The duty of the state board of equalization shall be to adjust and equalize the valuation of the real and personal property among the several counties of the state. The duty of the county board of equalization shall be to adjust and equalize the valuation of the real and personal property within their respective counties. Each board shall also perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law." By this section are created the state and county boards of equalization, and their duties defined. Under its provisions, the controversy in this case mainly arose.

The provision relating to county boards was before us in the case of Salt Lake City v. Armstrong, 15 Utah 472, 49 P. 641; and we there held that the county board of equalization might raise or lower the valuation of any class of property in the county, or of real estate in any particular locality, for the purpose of adjustment and equalization of values. Mr. Chief Justice Zane, delivering the opinion of the court, in reference to section 11, said: "The last section makes it the duty of the county board to adjust and equalize the valuation of the real and personal property within their respective counties, without prescribing the mode to be adopted. This leaves the board the discretion to adopt any reasonable and just method, and if, upon an examination and investigation of the assessment, the board should be of the opinion that the real estate in a particular locality is too high, and that in other localities the assessment is too low, it would appear to be a reasonable exercise of its authority to prescribe the localities, and raise or lower the valuation, so as to equalize the assessment in such districts." The action of that board is not restricted to the total valuation made by the assessor. Evidently, its duty is to adjust and equalize the valuation of the property within its county. Its action is therefore confined within the limits of the county; but, within such limits, it has power to raise or lower the individual assessments, so as to make the valuation uniform and equal, and so that the burden of taxation may be apportioned equitably among the taxpayers in proportion to the value of their property. Its action may extend to any locality or particular district of the county. It has the right to determine the value of property, and, if necessary for the purpose of equalization, may raise the valuation of one district, and lower that of another, even though by such action the total valuation of the property of the county may be increased or decreased.

What has been said respecting county boards applies with equal force to the state board, except that it may not encroach upon the domain of the county board in an attempt to adjust and equalize the valuation of property within the county. With this exception, it will be observed that the constitutional duties and powers of the state and county boards contained in this section are precisely the same. Where the same duty is imposed, and the same power exists there the same result may be expected, as intended, from the performance of such duty, and the exercise of...