Williams v. Stanley Co., 8557

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtSICKEL, Circuit Judge.
Citation69 S.D. 118,7 N.W.2d 148
Decision Date17 December 1942
Docket Number8557
PartiesLEON A. WILLIAMS and LOUIS E. BELAND, Respondents, v. STANLEY COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Appellant
69 SD 118, 7 NW2d 148 (1942)

LEON A. WILLIAMS and LOUIS E. BELAND,
Respondents,
v.
STANLEY COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,

Appellant


Appeal from Circuit Court, Stanley County, SD
Hon. Boyd M. Benson, Judge.
#8557—Affirmed.

F. W. Lambert, Fort Pierre, SD
Leo A. Temmey, Huron, SD
Charles P. Warren, Pierre, SD
Attorneys for Appellant.

J. F. Callahan, Fort Pierre, SD
Byron S. Payne, Pierre, SD
Attorney for Respondents.

Opinion filed Dec 17, 1942

[69 SD 119, 120]

SICKEL, Circuit Judge.


Leon A. Williams and Louis E. Beland are the owners of 8572 acres of land in Stanley County. They petitioned the County Board of Equalization for a reduction in the valuation of their 1940 assessment on this land. This petition was denied by the Board and the owners then appealed to the Circuit Court. The action was tried de novo. Findings and judgment were entered reducing the assessed valuation of the land, and from that judgment the county has appealed to this court.

The county admits that the valuation of the land in question by the assessment officers at $3.21 per acre exceeded its actual value, and does not dispute that $1.63 per acre was its actual value. The county claims, however, that no reduction in value was necessary to effect uniformity as to this land and other property of the same class; that the owners were not injured by the assessed valuation

[69 SD 121]

placed on the land by the assessment officers, and that therefore the court was without jurisdiction or authority of law to reduce the assessment to actual value.

The owners of the land admit that the assessment of $3.21 per acre was uniform with other property of the same class, but claim that they were entitled to have their assessment reduced to actual value, regardless of any question of uniformity that they were injured by the excess valuation to the extent that their taxes were increased thereby, and that the court was authorized by law to reduce the assessment to actual value. The trial court entered judgment reducing the assessed valuation from $3.21 per acre to $1.63 per acre, and this judgment has been assigned as error by appellant.

Article XI, section 2, of the State Constitution provides that “the valuation of property for taxation purposes shall never exceed the actual value thereof.”

Section 57.0407 of the code provides: ” [The County Board of Equalization] shall reduce the valuation of each tract or lot, which in its opinion is returned above its true and full value, to such price and sum as it believes to be the true and full value thereof.”

These provisions of the Constitution and of the statute establish the right to an assessed valuation which does not exceed the actual value of the property taxed, and when excessive valuation has been shown the owner is entitled to relief though there is no proof that a reduction is necessary to effect uniformity with other property of the same class. Hanson v. Local Board of Review, Iowa, 4 NW2d 384; Des Moines Gas Co. v. Saverude, 190 Iowa 165, 180 N. W. 193; Lyons v. Board of Equalization, 102 Iowa 1, 70 NW 711; In re Assessment of Osage & Okl. Gas Co., 35 Okl. 154, 128 P. 692; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. City of Hartford, 99 Conn. 329, 122 A 91.

The case of Hanson v. Local Board, supra, was an appeal from the Board of Review to the District Court. The issue was whether the assessed values were excessive. The statute required that assessments be based on actual value,

[69 SD 122]

and the court said: “The question with which we are con'ronted is substantially this: Should the court interfere with assessed values fixed by the assessor and confirmed by the local board of review merely because they are excessive, when it appears that they are not discriminatory or inequitable as compared with the assessed values of similar property in the same taxing district? We answer in the affirmative.” [4 NW2d 386.]

In Des Moines Gas Co. v. Saverude, supra, the court considered an appeal to the District Court from a decision of the Board of Review refusing to reduce an assessment. The only issue before the Board or before the court was the value of the property. The opinion states [190 Iowa 165, 180 NW 195]: “We have held that on appeal to the disbrict court it is the duty of the court to do that which it was claimed the board failed to do; that is, make a just and equitable assessment. On appeal the court becomes the assessing tribunal, which is clothed with authority to determine anew the sum in which the taxpayer is to be assessed. By the appeal the assessment by the board of review is superseded, and the assessment again made by the court.” (Cases cited.)

In the case of Lyons v. Board of Equalization, supra, the property owner appealed from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 14 February 1967
    ...that court and exercises independent judicial judgment where excessive value is claimed. Williams v. Stanley County Board of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148. Evidence was introduced to present the question of value practically all of which was by North Western and is undisputed. Whi......
  • Dunker v. Brown County Bd. of Ed., Nos. 10009
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 15 April 1963
    ...Crook Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 270 N.W. 518; Williams v. Stanley Co. Board of Equalization, 69 [80 S.D. 206] S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148, and countless others. What effect the majority opinion has on these cases is left to speculation and Likewise, no one is contending that the l......
  • Fall River County v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue, Nos. 19379
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 28 August 1996
    ...from judicial encroachment. In fact, tax assessment is a "quasi-judicial" function. Williams v. Stanley County Bd. of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 124-25, 7 N.W.2d 148, 151 (1942); Pierre Water-Works Co. v. County of Hughes, 37 N.W. 733 (1888). SDCL 1-32-1 defines a "quasi-judicial function" ......
  • Baken Park, Inc. v. Pennington County, No. 9848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 12 June 1961
    ...to one who is vigilant because others sleep on their rights and waive their objections by failing to appeal. Williams v. Stanley County, 69 S.D. 118, 123, 7 N.W.2d 148, 151. Indicative of its importance, the uniformity and equality of taxation required by law is preferred over the standard ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 14 February 1967
    ...that court and exercises independent judicial judgment where excessive value is claimed. Williams v. Stanley County Board of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148. Evidence was introduced to present the question of value practically all of which was by North Western and is undisputed. Whi......
  • Dunker v. Brown County Bd. of Ed., Nos. 10009
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 15 April 1963
    ...Crook Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 270 N.W. 518; Williams v. Stanley Co. Board of Equalization, 69 [80 S.D. 206] S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148, and countless others. What effect the majority opinion has on these cases is left to speculation and Likewise, no one is contending that the l......
  • Fall River County v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue, Nos. 19379
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 28 August 1996
    ...from judicial encroachment. In fact, tax assessment is a "quasi-judicial" function. Williams v. Stanley County Bd. of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 124-25, 7 N.W.2d 148, 151 (1942); Pierre Water-Works Co. v. County of Hughes, 37 N.W. 733 (1888). SDCL 1-32-1 defines a "quasi-judicial function" ......
  • Baken Park, Inc. v. Pennington County, No. 9848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 12 June 1961
    ...to one who is vigilant because others sleep on their rights and waive their objections by failing to appeal. Williams v. Stanley County, 69 S.D. 118, 123, 7 N.W.2d 148, 151. Indicative of its importance, the uniformity and equality of taxation required by law is preferred over the standard ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT