Tax Assessments Against the Southern Land Co., In re
| Decision Date | 08 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 10861,10861 |
| Citation | 100 S.E.2d 555,143 W.Va. 152 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re TAX ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE SOUTHERN LAND COMPANY, Charles C. Dickinson, et al. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A county assessor in assessing property for taxation purposes acts in a ministerial, or administrative, capacity, and likewise a county court, sitting as a board of equalization and review, acts in such capacity. 2. In a case involving the assessment of property for taxation purposes, which does not involve the violation of a statute governing the assessment of property, or a violation of a constitutional provision, or in which a question of the constitutionality of a statute is not involved, this Court will not set aside or disturb an assessment made by an assessor or the county court, acting as a board of equalization and review, where the assessment is supported by substantial evidence.
Payne, Minor, Ray, Price & Loeb, Charleston, for plaintiffs in error.
W. W. Barron, Atty. Gen., Henry C. Bias, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Earl M. Hall, Pros. Atty., Madison, for defendant in error.
RILEY, President.
This is a statutory 'appeal', instituted under Code, 11-3-25, as amended, by The Southern Land Company, Charles C. Dickinson, John Q. Dickinson, Charles C. Dickinson, Jr., and Mary Price Ratrie, the owners of certain fee and mineral properties located in Boone County, to reduce the assessed valuations of the taxpayers' properties. From an adverse decision of the County Court of Boone County, acting as a board of equalization and review, the taxpayers appealed to the Circuit Court of Boone County, and the proceeding is before this Court 'on appeal' (writ of error) to the order of the Circuit Court of Boone County affirming the order of the county court.
Succinctly stated, the two issues before this Court are: (1) Whether the properties of the taxpayers have been assessed at more than their true and actual values; and (2) whether the taxpayers have been discriminated against in the assessment of their properties.
In an order entered by the Circuit Court of Boone County on February 9, 1957, the circuit court found that the lands of the taxpayers had not been assessed for the year 1955 at more than their true and actual values, and that there had been no unlawful discrimination against the taxpayers.
The following errors are assigned: (1) Valuations on taxpayers' properties are in excess of their true and actual values; (2) taxpayers are discriminated against by lower valuations of like adjacent property; (3) taxpayers are discriminated against by assessment of Class III property in Boone County at 61.75% of its value and Class II property and Class IV property at 28.45% and 25.85%, respectively; (4) taxpayers are discriminated against because Class III property in Boone County is assessed at a greater percentage of its true and actual value than Class III property in other counties; and (5) taxpayers are discriminated against because their property in Boone County is taxed higher than other species of property in West Virginia of equal value.
Taxpayers' properties consist of land owned in fee, mineral interests and coal interests, situated in Sherman, Crook and Washington Districts of Boone County.
Prior to May 1, 1955, the taxpayers filed with the Assessor of Boone County a return showing inter alia what they deemed to be the true and actual value of the properties, whose valuations for taxation purposes are in question here, as of January 1, 1955. The Assessor of Boone County, evidently believing this return to be erroneous, with the aid of H. R. Ball, Deputy Assessor of Boone County, and Fred Ramsey, a mining engineer familiar with mineral properties in Boone County, assessed the taxpayers' properties at what he considered to be their true and actual valuations. Being dissatisfied with the assessed valuations placed on their properties by the assessor, the taxpayers appeared, pursuant to Code, 11-3-24, before the County Court of Boone County, sitting as a board of equalization and review, on June 20 and 21, 1955. After hearing the evidence presented at this hearing, the county court reduced four of the total of sixteen valuations in question here, and affirmed the assessor's valuations on all the others.
Thereupon the taxpayers, pursuant to the provisions of Code, 11-3-25, as amended, appealed to the Circuit Court of Boone County from the order of the county court of that county; and the circuit court entered the order of June 9, 1957, unequivocally affirming the valuations placed on the taxpayers' properties by the County Court of Boone County, as follows:
'Sherman District
Description Landowners Assessor Valuation Circuit
Returns County Court
Court
69.28A, Fee Joes Creek $ 1,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00
22.03A, Fee, Toneys Br. 575.00 650.00 650.00 650.00
879.8A, Fee Big Coal and 22,875.00 35,200.00 35,200.00 35,200.00
Horse Creek
3741.33A, Fee Big Coal 92,275.00 224.400.00 187,050.00 187,050.00
River
44.07A, Fee, Seng Creek 450.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00
2927.1A, Fee Laurel Creek 70,250.00 102,450.00 102,450.00 102,450.00
'Crook District
2149.26A, Fee, Less Timber, $63,155.00 $128,900.00 $107,400.00 $107,400.00
Matts Creek & West Fork
310.38A, Fee, West Fork 10,865.00 17,000.00 15,500.00 15,550.00
3017.38A, Fee Pond Fork 75,000.00 136,000.00 136,000.00 136,000.00
1005A, Fee, Pond Fork 36,175.00 45,200.00 45,200.00 42,500.00
149.3A, Fee, Pond Fork 5,375.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 6,700.00
361.2A, Fee, Pond Fork 13,000.00 16,200.00 16,200.00 16,200.00
'Washington District
3983.29A, Fee, Spruce $137,650.00 $179,000.00 $159,100.00 $159,100.00
Laurel
129.25A, Fee, Spruce Laurel 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00
327.72A, Fee, Spruce Laurel 8,200.00 8,200.00 8,200.00
262.5A, Min. Turtle Creek 1,825.00 3,900.00 3,900.00 3,900.00'
As indicated in the brief of the Attorney General of West Virginia, there are two discrepancies in the figures just quoted as follows: (1) With regard to the 310.35 acres, fee on West Fork in Crook District, Boone County, the county court arrived at an assessed valuation of $15,500, whereas the circuit court placed the valuation on this land at $15,550, or $50 higher that the valuation placed thereon by the County Court of Boone County; and (2) the county court assessed the 1,005-acre tract of land, held in fee on Pond Fork in Crook District, at $45,200, whereas the circuit court fixed a valuation of $42,500 thereon, or $2,700 less than the valuation placed on the tract by the county court. Inasmuch as the order of the Circuit Court of Boone County, to which this writ of error is prosecuted, purports to and does affirm the valuations fixed by the County Court of Boone County, the specific valuations contained in the order as to these two tracts will be disregarded on this writ of error.
From the oral arguments before this Court, the Attorney General of West Virginia, through the Honorable Henry C. Bias, Jr., an Assistant Attorney General raised the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the order of the Circuit Court of Boone County. Inasmuch as the questions presented on this writ of error pertain solely to the valuations of taxpayers' properties, and because this phase had not been considered in the briefs of either of the parties, the Court suggested that counsel submit briefs on this question so that it may properly and specifically be disposed of by the Court.
The sole constitutional basis for the inquiry concerning the jurisdiction of this Court is Article V of the West Virginia Constitution, which reads as follows: 'The Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others; nor shall any person exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time, except that justices of the peace shall be eligible to the Legislature.'
This Court is well aware that through the course of many years this jurisdictional question, though it has been dealt with or ignored on many occasions, has not been consistent in its decisions.
In two of the early cases which were presented to this Court, it was held that the Supreme Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to fix the valuation of land for assessment purposes. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Ry. v. Board of Public Works, 28 W.Va. 264; and Mackin v. County Court of Taylor County, 38 W.Va. 338, 18 S.E. 632, which cases were decided, respectively, in the years 1886 and 1893. Notwithstanding the rather categorical statements contained in the syllabuses and opinions in the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway and Mackin cases, supra, the Court in the case of Wheeling Bridge & Terminal Railway v. Paull, 39 W.Va. 142, 146, 19 S.E. 551, 552, in granting a writ of mandamus, required the Circuit Court of Ohio County to determine the question of valuation and declared that: 'The ascertainment of the values of property is strictly judicial.' However, in this latter case no mention was made of the earlier Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway and Mackin cases, supra. In the case of Charleston & Southside Bridge Co. v. Kanawha County Court, 41 W.Va. 658, 665, 24 S.E. 1002, 1004, decided in 1896, only three years after the Mackin case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kline v. McCloud
... ... For the 1982 tax year, this land was valued at an average of approximately $13 per acre ... the tracts involved, showing that Westvaco's assessments on the various tracts ranged from a low of $9.60 per acre ... 611, 11 S.E.2d 757 (1940); Liberty Coal Co". v. Bassett, 108 W.Va. 293, 150 S.E. 745 (1929) ... \xC2" ... appraisal rather than deed sales, quoting from Southern Ry. Co. v. Watts, 260 U.S. 519, 526, 43 S.Ct. 192, 195, 67 ... than full value, may be unlawfully discriminated against by undervaluation of property of the same class belonging ... ...
-
Kanawha Val. Bank, In re
... ... 4. Charleston & S. Bridge Co. v. Kanawha County Court, 41 W.Va. 658 [24 S.E. 1002]; ... Page 651 ... In re Tax Assessments Against Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Association, 126 ... S.E.2d 655]; and In re Tax Assessment Against the Southern Land Company, Charles C. Dickinson, W.Va., 100 S.E.2d 555; ... ...
-
Killen v. Logan County Com'n
... ... which encourages or permits the setting of assessments at lower than 100 percent of "true and actual value" ... 605] Hays, II, Bluefield, for Amherst Coal Co ... Jacquline A. Kinnaman, Charleston, ... At this time, individuals with extensive land and other property interests in the county (hereafter ... Such a difference also violates the prohibition against taxation of property of equal value at a higher rate ... In re Tax Assessments Against The Southern Land Co., 143 W.Va. 152, 100 S.E.2d 555 (1957), overruled ... ...
-
Stone Brooke Ltd. Partnership v. Sisinni
... ... pt. 1, West Penn Power Co. v. Board of Review and Equalization [ of Brooke County ], ... Syllabus point 2, In re Tax Assessments Against the Southern Land Co., 143 W.Va. 152, 100 S.E.2d ... ...