State v. Linn County
| Decision Date | 03 April 1894 |
| Parties | STATE v. LINN COUNTY. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; George H. Burnett, Judge.
Action by the state of Oregon against Linn county to recover certain taxes alleged to be due the state from defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J.N. Duncan, for appellant.
Geo. E Chamberlain, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an action to recover a balance of $3,733.51 alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on account of state taxes for the year 1891. The controversy grows out of an increased valuation of real and personal property of the defendant in the sum of $746,713, made by the state board of equalization, over and above that of the county assessor, as corrected and approved by the county court of Linn county. Issue was joined by the pleadings, and at the trial plaintiff obtained judgment for the amount claimed, besides its costs and disbursements, from which the defendant appeals.
It is contended that the governor, secretary of state, and state treasurer had no authority to apportion the state tax among the several counties upon the equalization of the assessment made by the state board of equalization, but that under the provisions of section 2789, Hill's Code, they should have made the estimate of the amount of the state tax from the abstracts of the several assessment rolls transmitted to the secretary of state by the county clerks of the several counties. Section 9 of the act creating the state board of equalization (Sess.Laws 1891, p. 182) provides that, when such board has equalized the assessment of property among the several counties, the chairman and secretary thereof shall certify to the secretary of state the rate per cent. to be added to or deducted from the assessed valuation of each class of property in the several counties, and also the amounts of the aggregate valuation as equalized by the board. Prior to the act of 1891 the assessment rolls were complete when certified up to the secretary of state by the several county clerks, but after the passage of that act they were not complete until equalized by the state board, and the result certified to the secretary of state by the chairman and secretary of said board. The act creating the state board of equalization is remedial in its character, and intended to prevent fraud, suppress wrong, and promote the public good; and hence, to accomplish these objects, it should be construed most favorably.
End.St Const. §§ 107, 346. Statutes in pari materia must be construed together, and are treated, though separately enacted, as having formed in the minds of the legislative body parts of a connected whole. Smith v. Kelly (Or.) 33 P. 645; Suth.St. Const. § 288; End.St. Const. § 47. The object and purpose of the act of 1891 were to correct any inequality of assessment and taxation in the several counties of the state ( Railroad Co. v. Croisan, 22 Or. 393, 30 P. 219; Smith v. Kelly [Or.] 33 P. 645) and, though apparently disconnected with...
To continue reading
Request your trial