Williams v. Garfield Exch. Bank of Enid

• Decision Date: 14 May 1912
• Docket Number: Case Number: 2957
• Parties: WILLIAMS, County Clerk, v. GARFIELD EXCHANGE BANK OF ENID.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1912 OK 435

134 P. 863

38 Okla. 539

WILLIAMS, County Clerk, v. GARFIELD EXCHANGE BANK OF ENID.

Case Number: 2957

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 14, 1912

Syllabus

¶0 1. TAXATION--Equalization--Remedies. Whenever the statutes of a state provide a mode by which appeals may be taken from the assessment or equalization of property, that remedy is exclusive. Equitable remedies cannot be resorted to.

2.SAME--Injunction--Proof. Where a party seeks to enjoin the collection of a tax upon the ground of lack of uniformity on account of the action of the county board of equalization in raising the returned valuation thereof, it is not only necessary to allege in the petition, but It must be proved upon the trial, that the property was listed and returned for assessment at its true cash value before a court of equity will interfere.

3.SAME--Grounds. The judgment of the county board of equalization empowered to fix the valuation for taxation cannot be set aside upon the ground that the complaining party is required to pay more than his Just proportion of the taxes levied against him, if all the property of the county had been fairly and regularly assessed, where there is no evidence of fraud and no gross error in the system on which the valuations were made by the board of equalization.

Chas. N. Harmon, Co. Arty., Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, for plaintiff in error.

Parker & Simons and Roberts, Curran & Otjen, for defendant in error.

KANE, J.

¶1 This suit was commenced in the district court of Garfield county by the defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, for the purpose of enjoining him, as county clerk, from spreading upon the tax rolls of said county certain taxes levied against the Garfield Exchange Bank. The petition alleged, in substance: That in the year 1910 it was understood and agreed between the members of the board of equalization of the city of Enid and the city assessor that the property of said city should be assessed at 60 per cent. of its fair value, and that it was understood by the said assessor and the members of said board of equalization of the city that all of the township assessors of the county of Garfield would make the assessment of all property within said county upon the same basis. That notwithstanding said agreement the county board of equalization, with full knowledge thereof, ordered the plaintiff's property, together with the property of all the banks of the city of Enid in said county, raised and assessed at its full value. That all the property of the said city of Enid, with the exception of other banking corporations, was systematically and intentionally assessed under said agreement and understanding by said assessor, under its fair cash value, and not exceeding 60 per cent. thereof. That by said action the Garfield Exchange Bank of Enid was discriminated against and compelled thereby to bear a greater proportion of the burdens of taxation in proportion to its property than other individual taxpayers in the city. A demurrer to the petition was overruled, whereupon defendant filed an answer, denying generally the allegations therein, and further alleged that the plaintiff had not availed itself of the remedies provided by the statures of Oklahoma for the correction of any wrong, if it felt aggrieved, and that the assessment of the plaintiff was in truth and in fact below the fair market value of its property, and gave to plaintiff an advantage over other taxpayers upon personal property in the county of Garfield for the year 1910. Upon the issues thus joined the case was tried to the court, and after the introduction of plaintiff's evidence the defendant demurred thereto for the reason that the same did not establish a cause of action for the relief sought, which demurrer was overruled. Thereupon evidence was introduced on behalf of the defendant, at the close of which defendant demurred to the evidence as a whole for the reason that it did not prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause for action in favor of the plaintiff, which demurrer was reserved until the final argument of the case. Thereafter the cause was argued to the court, and thereafter the judge of said court filed in said cause an opinion, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for, and peremptory writ of injunction to that effect was entered, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced. The Attorney General in his brief presents his grounds for reversal under the following subheads:

(1) The court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition because it appears that the plaintiff had a plain, speedy, adequate remedy at law: (a) By appearing before the city equalization board and presenting the facts in its possession and having the individual assessments of the city of Enid increased or decreased so as to comply with the Constitution and laws pertaining to assessment of property. (b) By appearing before the county equalization board and presenting facts in its knowledge and asking for an increase of the valuation of the property of the city of Enid other than banks. (c) By appealing from the action of the county board to the county court as provided by section 1, c. 87, Seas. Laws 1910. (d) By appealing from the action of the city board to the county commissioners under section 7616, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 7366). (e) By invoking the power of the state board to equalize and correct the property values. (f) Because the petition did not allege that plaintiff's property is returned at its fair cash value. (g) Because it did not allege that the taxes which the petition shows to be due have been paid.

(2) The court erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's evidence because the evidence does not show there was fraud or misconduct equivalent to fraud on the part of the county board of equalization.

¶2 It is well settled that, whenever the statutes of a state provide a mode by which appeals may be taken from the assessment or equalization of property, that remedy is exclusive. Equitable remedies cannot be resorted to. Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) p. 1382; Carroll v. Gerlach, 11 Okla. 151, 65 P. 844; Finney County v. Bullard, 77 Kan. 349, 94 P. 129, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 807; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Douglas County et al., 76 Neb. 666, 107 N.W. 985; Stanley v. Board of Supervisors, 121 U.S. 535, 7 S. Ct. 1234, 30 L. Ed. 1000; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U.S. 591, 11 S. Ct. 646, 35 L. Ed. 273; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U.S. 32, 19 S. Ct. 90, 43 L. Ed. 354. Section 7616, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 7366), provides that the city board of equalization shall meet on the third Monday in April to examine the assessment rolls of the city, "and to hear all complaints of persons who shall feel aggrieved by their assessment, and to correct, equalize and adjust the assessment therein by increasing or decreasing individual assessments or the aggregate assessments of such city * * * and if necessary they may require a reassessment of any or all the property therein, such correction, equalization, adjustment, or reassessment shall be for the purpose of causing the same to be assessed at its fair cash value as herein defined, and the decision of said board shall be final as to individual assessments unless an appeal is taken to the board of county commissioners on or before the first Monday in June next following. The decision of the board of county commissioners shall be final in all cases." Section 7617 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 7367) of the same chapter provides:

"For the purpose of equalizing, correcting and adjusting the assessment; rolls in their county between the different townships, by increasing or decreasing the aggregate assessed value of the property or any class thereof, in any or all of them to conform to the fair cash value thereof as herein defined: Provided that the county board of equalization may for the

...