State ex rel. Hepperla v. Glander, 33338
| Decision Date | 17 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 33338,33338 |
| Citation | 160 Ohio St. 59,113 N.E.2d 357 |
| Parties | , 50 O.O. 529 STATE ex rel. HEPPERLA v. GLANDER, Tax Com'r et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Davis & Young, Meyer A. Cook, Cleveland, Isadore Topper and Leonard Stern, Columbus, for appellant.
C. William O'Neill, Atty.Gen., Everett H. Krueger, Jr., Cleveland, J. Ralston Werum, Columbus, Joseph H. Crowley, Director of Law, and Richard O. Horn, Cleveland, for appellees.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and to maintain successfully an action in mandamus it is incumbent on the relator to show that he has no adequate remedy at law and that the person or persons against whom the issuance of the writ is asked have failed to perform a duty specially enjoined on them by law.
This court is of the opinion that the principle announced and applied in the case of State ex rel. Hile, a Taxpayer, v. Zangerle, Aud., 132 Ohio St. 523, 9 N.E.2d 292, is largely determinative of the instant controversy. An examination of the record in that case discloses that both real and personal property were involved. With respect to the instant case, the material difference between the statutory law in force when the Hile case was decided and the statutory law which is applicable to the present case is that certain duties with respect to taxation, which formerly devolved upon the Tax Commission, are now divided between the Tax Commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals.
As pointed out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals herein, a county auditor presently acts under the direction of the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to real property, whereas with respect to personal property he acts under the direction of the Tax Commissioner.
Section 5616, General Code, reads as follows:
Under this section, relator had the right to complain to the Board of Tax Appeals with respect to the failure of the Cuyahoga county auditor to place the real estate of the city of Cleveland, described in the second amended petition, on the tax list and duplicate, but he did not exercise that right.
Section 5609, General Code, recognizes the right of any taxpayer to file a complaint with the county auditor respecting the valuation or assessment of property on the tax duplicate. The county auditor is then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tug Valley Recovery Center, Inc. v. Mingo County Commission
...N.E.2d 908 (1964); Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen County Board of Taxation, 31 N.J. 420, 157 A.2d 829 (1960); State v. Glander, 160 Ohio St. 59, 113 N.E.2d 357 (1953); Pierce v. Green, 229 Iowa 22, 294 N.W. 237 (1940). See also, Switz v. Middletown Township, 23 N.J. 580, 130 A.2d 15 (......
-
State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. City of Berea
...149 Ohio St. 45, 77 N.E.2d 465; State ex rel. Welker v. Indus. Comm., 150 Ohio St. 464, 83 N.E.2d 226; State ex rel. Hepperla v. Glander, Tax Commr., 160 Ohio St. 59, 113 N.E.2d 357; State ex rel. Adams v. Rockwell et al., Board of Edn., 167 Ohio St. 15, 145 N.E.2d 665; State ex rel. Schafe......
-
Sesemann v. Howell
...remedy at law under section 77--1216, R.R.S.1943, had it been timely pursued. For an analogous situation see State ex rel. Hepperla v. Glander, 160 Ohio St. 59, 113 N.E.2d 357. We hold that the plaintiffs were not, under the facts pleaded, entitled to declaratory relief in the District AFFI......
-
Harp v. Cope United Methodist Home
...this right accrued irrespective of the fact that the board itself previously granted the exemption. In State ex rel. Hepperla v. Glander (1953), 160 Ohio St. 59, 113 N.E.2d 357, a relator sought to compel the Auditor of Cuyahoga County to place certain property of the city of Cleveland on t......