State v. Diamond Valley Live-Stock & Land Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1890
• Docket Number: 1,327.
• Citation: 25 P. 448,21 Nev. 86
• Parties: STATE v. DIAMOND VALLEY LIVE-STOCK & LAND CO.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

25 P. 448

21 Nev. 86

STATE v. DIAMOND VALLEY LIVE-STOCK & LAND CO.

No. 1,327.

Supreme Court of Nevada

December 22, 1890

Appeal from district court, Eureka county; A. L. FITZGERALD, Judge.

Rives & Beatty and J. R. Judge, for appellant.

The Attorney General, Peter Breen, Dist. Atty., and A. E. Cheney for the State.

MURPHY J.

This a suit against the above-named defendant and certain real estate and improvements, described in the complaint, to recover state and county taxes assessed against the corporation in Eureka county for the year 1888, and to enforce against the property the lien created by law. The plaintiff had judgment against the corporation, which appealed, and seeks a reversal of the judgment upon two grounds.

The first defense set up is that there was no valid assessment of the property described in the complaint made against the defendant, "The Diamond Valley Live-Stock & Land Company," but that the same was made and the property assessed against the "Diamond Valley Stock Company, R Sadler, Agent," and that the true name of the corporation is

"The Diamond Valley Live Stock & Land Company." The question to be determined from the facts in this case is whether the defendant should be required to pay the taxes notwithstanding the mistake in the name of the corporation or whether the corporation was injured thereby, and the omitting of the words "Live" and "Land" from the name of the company is such an error as vitiates the assessment as made by the assessor, and relieves the corporation from the payment of its just proportion of taxes to the support of the state and county governments for the year 1888. While, on the other hand, it is important to the security of the tax-payer that as much regularity and uniformity as is practicable should be maintained in the naming of the owners of property, and the listing of the same for the purpose of taxation, it is also important that, as far as practicable, all persons and corporations liable to taxation should pay their or its just proportion of the public taxes, and not be permitted to escape by means of slight mistakes or frivolous objections. We think this is the plain intent of the law. Section 1080, Gen. St., reads: "All property of every kind and nature whatsoever within this state, shall be subject to taxation, except." And the property of the defendant does not fall within the excepted class. Section 1082 reads: "Between the first Monday in March and the first Monday in September, in each year, the county assessor *** shall ascertain, by diligent inquiry and examination, all property in his county, real or personal, subject to taxation, and also the names of all persons, corporations, associations, companies, or firms owning the same. *** He shall then list and assess the same to the person, firm, corporations, etc. He shall also demand from each person and firm, and from the president, cashier, treasurer, or managing agent of each corporation, *** a statement, under oath or affirmation, of all property within his county owned or claimed by him, it, or them. If any person, officer, or agent shall refuse to furnish such list, or shall give a false name, or shall refuse to give his other name, or shall refuse to swear or affirm, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. If the owner of the property shall fail or refuse to make out and swear to the statement as required by the statute, the assessor shall make an estimate of the value of such property and assess the same. *** If the name of the owner be known, the property shall be assessed in his or her name. If unknown to the assessor, the property shall be assessed to unknown owners. From the foregoing, we are of the opinion that where there is a slight error in the name of the person or corporation taxed, when the property is correctly described, and the owners are not misled by such name or description, the tax assessed to him or it may, notwithstanding such error, be collected of the person or corporation intended to be taxed, provided the person or corporation can be identified by competent evidence. In this case the omission of a part of the name of the defendant was the fault of the vice-president and managing agent of the corporation.

On the trial in the district court, C. C. Wallace, assessor of Eureka county, testified: "The Diamond Valley Property as I had always...