State ex rel. Goodell v. Davis, 33031.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | HARVEY, Justice. |
| Citation | 62 P.2d 893,144 Kan. 708 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GOODELL, Co. Atty., v. DAVIS et al. |
| Docket Number | 33031. |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1936 |
62 P.2d 893
144 Kan. 708
STATE ex rel. GOODELL, Co. Atty.,
v.
DAVIS et al.
No. 33031.
Supreme Court of Kansas
December 12, 1936
Syllabus by the Court.
Order of State Tax Commission that certain property be taken from assessment roll as exempt held reviewable in action brought by state on relation of county attorney to enjoin county treasurer and county clerk from complying with order (Rev.St.1923, 79--1702).
Statute pertaining to authority of State Tax Commission held not to require that commission be made party to action to enjoin county officers from complying with order exempting property from taxation (Rev.St.Supp. 1933, 74-2401a).
An order of the State Tax Commission, that certain property be taken from the assessment roll as exempt, may be reviewed in an action brought by the state on the relation of the county attorney.
Appeal from District Court, Shawnee County, Second Division; Paul H. Heinz, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of Lester M. Goodell, County Attorney of Shawnee County, against J. Glen Davis and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
A. W. Fulton, of Chicago, Ill., and George R. Allen, Richard F. Allen, John L. Hunt, Margaret McGurnaghan, John H. Hunt, and George M. Brewster, all of Topeka, for appellants Security Benefit Ass'n and Security Benefit Home & Hospital Ass'n.
Hugh T. Fisher, Lester M. Goodell, and Irwin Snattinger, all of Topeka, for appellee.
HARVEY, Justice.
This was an action by the state on the relation of the county attorney of Shawnee county to enjoin the county treasurer and county clerk of that county from complying with a certain order of the State Tax Commission respecting the assessment for taxation of the property of the Security Benefit Home & Hospital Association. That association and the Security Benefit Association were made party defendants. Their demurrer to plaintiff's second amended petition was overruled, and they have appealed.
The pertinent allegations of the attacked petition may be summarized as follows: That the Security Benefit Home & Hospital Association, a corporation, was the owner of a large amount of real and personal property situated in the county, all of which was duly assessed for the purposes of taxation for the year 1934 by the county assessor; that later the association applied to the board of county commissioners, sitting as a board of equalization, for the removal of its property from the tax rolls, which application was denied; that later an application for the same relief was made to the State Tax Commission, which, after a hearing, found that a substantial portion of the property was used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. McHenry, s. 45195-45196
...one of the appropriate extraordinary legal remedies consisting of injunction, mandamus or quo warranto. (State, ex rel. Goodell v. Davis, 144 Kan. 708, 710, 62 P.2d 893; City of Kansas City v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 187 Kan. 701, 360 P.2d 'The entire matter of taxation is legislative......
-
Umbehr v. Board of County Com'rs of Wabaunsee County, 65945
...mandamus or quo warranto. (In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Rly Co., [140 Kan. 465, 468, 37 P.2d 7]; State, ex rel. Goodell v. Davis, 144 Kan. 708, 710, 62 P.2d 893.)' " (Emphasis added.) State, ex rel. v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. at 50, 542 P.2d 664 (quoting City of Kansas City v. Jones &......
-
Petition of City of Salina, 37919
...County Comm'rs, 123 Kan. 77, 254 P. 321; State ex rel. v. Drainage Dist., 123 Kan. 191, 254 P. 372; State ex rel. Goodell v. Davis, 144 Kan. 708, 62 P.2d 893; Board of Comm'rs of Shawnee County v. Wright, 147 Kan. 542, 78 P.2d Statutes should not be held unconstitutional unless it is clear ......
-
State ex rel. Sanborn v. Unified School Dist. 259, 47696
...mandamus or quo warranto. (In re Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., supra, 140 Kan. p. 468, 37 P.2d 7; State ex rel. v. Davis, 144 Kan. 708, 710, 62 P.2d 893.)' (P. 703, 360 P.2d p. The state election board is therefore not the final arbiter of the statute, despite its language; if the board acts......