State ex rel. Greenwood v. Pearson

• Decision Date: 14 November 1933
• Docket Number: 1807
• Citation: 26 P.2d 641,46 Wyo. 307
• Parties: STATE EX REL. GREENWOOD, ATTY. GEN., v. PEARSON, ET AL., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

26 P.2d 641

46 Wyo. 307

STATE EX REL. GREENWOOD, ATTY. GEN., v. PEARSON, ET AL., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

No. 1807

Supreme Court of Wyoming

November 14, 1933

APPEAL from the District Court, Crook County; C. O. BROWN, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of James A. Greenwood, Attorney General, against Charles A. Pearson and others, as and constituting the Board of Commissioners of Crook County. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

The cause was submitted for the appellants upon the brief of Rodney M. Guthrie, of Sundance, Wyoming.

The main question in this case is whether the State Board of Equalization had power and jurisdiction to order the increase of assessments. The court below ordered a peremptory Writ of Mandamus to be issued, from which defendants appealed. Mandamus is a discretionary writ. 38 C. J. 541; State v Lewis, 76 Missouri 370. The statute requires property to be listed, valued and taxed each year and real property is to be assessed at its true value. 115-119 R. S. 1931; 24 A. L R. 649; State v. Illinois C. R. 79 Am. Dec. 396. The evidence showed this rule to have been followed by the Assessor of Crook County. The State Board of Equalization attempted to follow a rule of relative value which was erroneous. 61 C. J. 743; In re Gibson, 20 U. C. Q B. (Ont.) 111; Taylor v. State 83 So. 810. The powers of a State Board of Equalization are such as are conferred upon it by statute or by the Constitution. 61 C. J. 750 and cases cited. The State Board being without power could not make the order that was attempted. 38 C. J. 683. R. R. Co. v. State (Calif.) 127 P. 153. A court cannot compel the performance of an illegal act. The State Board proceeded in an illegal manner in arriving at the valuation. Property should be taxed at a uniform rate. Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association, 29 Wyo. 461; Section 11 of Article XV of the State Constitution. Sec. 115-119 R. S. 1931. It is the function of a State Board of Equalization to equalize the valuation in the several counties of the State. The evidence showed that the valuation of grazing lands in Crook County were fixed at $ 2.36 per acre; grazing lands in Campbell County at $ 2.05 1/2 per acre and in Weston County at $ 2.04 per acre. This in itself should create a presumption of discrimination, it being shown that the lands in each of these counties are about the same, although there was evidence showing that the grazing lands in Crook County were inferior to the grazing lands in Campbell and Weston Counties. Methods of equalization must not result in nor create inequalities of valuation. 61 C. J. 743; Lancaster County v. Whedon, 108 N.W. 127; Sea Isle City v. Cape May County (N. J. 12 A. 771; State v. Stewart, 297 P. 476; Bank v. Kimball, 103 U.S. 732; Los Angeles Company v. Los Angeles County, 121 P. 384. The order made by the Board of Equalization was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Board. 61 C. J. 750; Sec. 115-119 R. S. 1931; Article XV, Section 11, State Constitution. There was no actual or fair attempt to comply with the true value in money test; the order was discriminatory, arbitrary and despotic, and without proper consideration as to valuations in adjoining counties.

The cause was submitted for respondent upon the brief of Ray E. Lee, Attorney General, Oscar O. Natwick, Deputy Attorney General, and William C. Snow, Assistant Attorney General, all of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Defendants and appellants admit that if the Board had power to make the order, the Writ of Mandamus was proper. The authority of the Board was challenged on the ground that it is not based on law and reason but was merely an arbitrary and discriminatory order, prejudical to the taxpayers of Crook County. There was no evidence offered by defendants showing unreasonable or arbitrary action on the part of the Board. On the contrary, it was shown by the evidence that the order was made by the Board only after a most careful examination and study of the subject of land valuations. The order made was within the jurisdiction of the Board. Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association, supra. The evidence failed to show anything arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent in the manner in which the Board proceeded to arrive at the valuation of grazing lands or in their action in making the raise of 9 per cent in the one case and 15 per cent in the other case in the valuation of lands in Crook County. Even if an assessment is excessive, it is not because of that fact fraudulent. Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association, supra. The case of Finch v. Grays Harbor, 209 P. 833, cited by appellant, shows that the valuation placed upon the lands by the assessor was grossly excessive of their fair value. The facts in that case are different from the facts in the present case. There is nothing in the case of 24 A. L. R. 649 adverse to the respondent in the case at bar, nor in the case of Taylor v. State, 83 So. 810, cited by appellants. The case of McKay v. San Francisco, 45 P. 696, is not applicable to the case at bar, since it is based upon a section of the California Constitution. The Montana case of State v. Stewart, 297 P. 476, cited by appellants, contains no principle of law adverse to the action of the Board in the present case. Land values are always a matter of opinion. The only competent testimony in the case is that of C. H. McWhinnie in behalf of the plaintiff. The order of the Board was based upon evidence and information which the Board had on hand on July 14, 1932. The case for defendants and appellants falls so far short of showing intentional discrimination or constructive fraud that the testimony of the witnesses seems to be wholly immaterial in the case. The judgment below should be affirmed.

BLUME, Justice. KIMBALL, Ch. J., and RINER, J., concur.

OPINION

BLUME, Justice.

On July 14, 1932, the state board of equalization, after examining the abstracts of the assessment rolls of the various counties in the state, found that the grazing and dry farm lands in Crook County had been undervalued, and directed the board of county commissioners of that county, by an order duly issued to cause to be increased by nine per cent the valuation of the grazing lands and by fifteen per cent the valuation of the dry farm lands, in that county. The board of county commissioners refused to comply with the order. On August 17th, 1932, accordingly, an action was brought by the state, as plaintiff, on relation of the attorney general against the members of the board of county commissioners above mentioned, as defendants, to compel compliance therewith. On August 31, 1932, an answer was filed in the cause, containing a general denial, and setting forth in a second defense substantially the following, namely: Defendants deny that the state board of equalization examined and compared the returns of assessments of the property in the several counties in 1932 and equalized the same, and that as a result of such examination it was found that grazing and dry farm lands in Crook County were undervalued; that under section 1, article 15, of the Constitution, all the property of the state must be uniformly assessed for taxation, and all the land must be assessed at its actual value; that to that end the assessor of Crook County, in 1932, fixed the value of grazing lands in that county at an average of $ 2.16 and the average value of farm lands at $ 5.47 per acre; that in the adjoining county of Weston grazing land was assessed at $ 2.04 and in the adjoining county of Campbell at $ 2.05; that it was well known to the state board of equalization that the lands in these three counties are of the same general character and value; that despite this knowledge, the value of the lands in Weston and Campbell counties were not raised, but the board raised the valuation of the lands in Crook County alone; that such order was made for the purpose of working an intentional discrimination against the tax payers of Crook county, and for...