State ex rel. Methodist Book Concern v. Guckenberger

• Citation: 57 Ohio App. 13,11 N.E.2d 277
• Parties: STATE ex rel. METHODIST BOOK CONCERN v. GUCKENBERGER, Auditor.
• Decision Date: 22 March 1937
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

57 Ohio App. 13
11 N.E.2d 277

STATE ex rel. METHODIST BOOK CONCERN
v.
GUCKENBERGER, Auditor.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

March 22, 1937.

Action by the State, on the relation of the Methodist Book Concern, for a writ of prohibition to George Guckenberger, Auditor of Hamilton County. On respondent's general demurrer to the petition. [Editorial Statement.]

Demurrer sustained.

Judgment affirmed in 10 N.E.2d 1001.

[11 N.E.2d 278]

Harry J. Koehler, Jr., of Hamilton, and M. C. Slutes, of Cincinnati, for relator.

Louis J. Schneider, Pros. Atty., Walter M. Locke, and Greg. H. Williams, all of Cincinnati, for respondent.

MATTHEWS, Judge.

This is an action invoking the original jurisdiction of this court in prohibition.

The relator, the Methodist Book Concern, a corporation, alleges that it made application in 1934 to the Tax Commission of Ohio, to have certain described real and personal property owned by it, and located in Hamilton county, placed on the tax exempt list, on the ground that it was used for charitable purposes, and that the Tax Commission, on the 19th day of June, 1934, made a finding on its journal on the application that the property was exempt from taxation for the year 1934 ‘and thereafter as long as said property is used for the purposes stated in said application.’

The relator also alleges that such finding remains unreversed and unmodified.

It also alleges that the property is still being used for the purposes set forth in the application to the Tax Commission in 1934, but, notwithstanding this, the respondent, George Guckenberger, as auditor of Hamilton county, has threatened to and will place this property on the taxable list of property for the year 1937, unless prohibited by this court.

The relator further avers that such action would constitute a usurpation of judicial or quasi judicial authority; that it has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course, and prays, therefore, that this court issue a writ prohibiting the auditor from assuming to exercise such authority.

The cause comes before the court upon the respondent's general demurrer to the petition.

[11 N.E.2d 279]

In passing upon the demurrer, we must disregard legal conclusions found in the petition and base our decision solely upon the facts pleaded. Then, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, do they state a cause of action for the issuance of the writ?

It is the contention of the relator that the auditor of Hamilton county has no authority to determine whether property is taxable or nontaxable; that, in assuming to place the property on the taxable list, he usurped authority of a judicial or quasi judicial nature...