Weatherly v. Cloworth Development Co.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 6681. |
| Citation | 166 P. 156,63 Okla. 307,1917 OK 260 |
| Parties | WEATHERLY, TREASURER, v. CLOWORTH DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
By section 11, c. 152, Laws 1911, the county board of equalization was authorized to add omitted property to the assessment rolls upon giving the notice required by said section.
The remedies provided by statute authorizing an appeal from the assessment or equalization of property or by what relief may be had against erroneous assessments or mistakes, a difference in the description or value of such property are exclusive, and equitable remedies cannot be resorted to.
The courts of this state will take judicial knowledge of who are the tax assessors and tax officials within the court's jurisdiction.
Error from Superior Court, Garfield County; Dan Huett, Judge.
Action by the Cloworth Development Company, a corporation, against E. B. Weatherly, Treasurer and Ex Officio Tax Collector of Garfield County, Okl. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
W. W Sutton, Co. Atty., of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
W. O Cromwell, of Enid, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, brought this action against plaintiff in error, defendant below, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes assessed against plaintiff's property which defendant, as county treasurer of Garfield county, was threatening to collect. Demurrer to plaintiff's petition was overruled, and defendant prosecutes error.
The petition alleges that defendant, as county treasurer and ex officio tax collector, had advertised plaintiff's property for sale on account of alleged failure to pay certain taxes against said property for the year 1912; that none of plaintiff's property was ever listed for taxation for said year by the assessor of Garfield county or by any other person authorized by law so to do; that plaintiff, nor any of its agents or officers, were ever called upon by the assessor to list its property at any time for the year 1912, nor did it or any of its officers, at any time, refuse to give a list of its property subject to taxation for said year. The petition further alleges that without plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and without notice to it, some person to it unknown placed the property involved upon the tax rolls for the year 1912 at a certain assessed valuation, which is alleged to be wrongful and illegal, because said property had never, at any time prior thereto, been listed or assessed for taxation as required by law. Further, that said assessment was illegal and wrongful and void and contrary to the direction of the board of equalization of said county, in this: That said board had directed plaintiff's property to be listed and assessed at a valuation less than that actually placed thereon; that plaintiff is informed and believes that one J. P. Stuard, formerly county assessor of Garfield county, caused plaintiff's property to be placed on the tax rolls at an exorbitant valuation, without calling on plaintiff for a list and valuation of its said property, with the fraudulent intent and purpose on his part to injure plaintiff in the collection of said illegal and pretended tax. It is further alleged that the property described is not city property or used for city purposes; that it derives no benefit from the city or from the privileges of water, fire protection, sewer, lights, or gas, and is not used for city purposes, but, on the contrary, is used and cultivated as agricultural land; that other tracts of land for farming purposes situated in or much closer to the courthouse square than plaintiff's property was assessed at a less valuation, and that the values placed upon plaintiff's property is in excess of the fair cash value thereof.
As we understand plaintiff's theory, it is this: That because plaintiff, nor any one in its behalf, had listed said property for taxation, and because the assessor had not demanded of plaintiff a list, nor listed the same himself, the tax sought to be collected was therefore illegal and void. By the provisions of section 11, c. 152, Sess. Laws 1911, the county board of equalization is authorized to add omitted property to the assessment rolls upon giving notice in writing to the owner or his agent, properly mailed to such person at his post office address, to appear at a time and place fixed in said notice, and show cause why such assessment should not be increased or other property added thereto. Weatherly v. Sawyer, 163 P. 717 (). It appears from the allegations in the petition that plaintiff's property was ordered listed and assessed by the board of equalization at a certain value. The petition fails to allege that no written notice was given to plaintiff by said board of its action in the premises, or that plaintiff was, by reason of the failure to give such notice, deprived of an opportunity to appear and show cause why said property should not be listed and assessed pursuant to the direction of said board; and, in the absence of such an allegation, the petition is fatally defective in this particular. Weatherly v. Sawyer, supra.
If in fact, the board of equalization gave the notice required by said section and directed the property to be listed and assessed, and same was listed and assessed pursuant to said direction, jurisdiction was thereby conferred upon the taxing officials to take each and every step necessary to levy and collect a valid tax against plaintiff's property. By the provisions of said chapter 152 plaintiff was authorized to appear before the board of equalization and present any claim it might have as to the assessment of its property or the valuation thereof, and, feeling aggrieved at any action of the board, was given the right of appeal to the superior or district courts of the county in which the property was situated wherein the action of the board of equalization might be reviewed.
The allegation that plaintiff's property was placed upon the tax rolls at a valuation different from that at which it was directed to be listed and assessed by the board of equalization is not sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief asked. There is no allegation that the value at which said property was finally placed upon the tax rolls was not the values as fixed thereon by the state board of equalization, and for all we are able to tell, such may have been the case; and, in the absence of an allegation to the contrary, we are justified in presuming this to be true. Weatherly v. Sawyer, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial