Worthington Pump & Mach. Corp. v. City of Cudahy
| Decision Date | 12 June 1931 |
| Citation | 205 Wis. 227,237 N.W. 140 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | WORTHINGTON PUMP & MACHINERY CORPORATION v. CITY OF CUDAHY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Gustave G. Gehrz, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
Action by the Worthington Pump & Machinery Corporation against the City of Cudahy. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
The action was instituted on January 23, 1929, to have the assessment for the year 1927, of the plaintiff's property located in the city of Cudahy, declared to be illegal, and to recover the amount of $18,452.75, which represented the amount of illegal tax claimed to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, city of Cudahy.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered December 26, 1930, dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
The plaintiff, Worthington Pump & Machinery Corporation, is a foreign corporation, and for some years was engaged in the business of manufacturing power and mining machinery. It was the owner of real estate in the city of Cudahy, consisting of eleven or twelve buildings and twenty-seven or twenty-eight acres of land. In May, 1924, the company ceased operating its plant, and its property in Cudahy remained vacant until it was sold in April, 1928. The total valuation of the property in 1923 and 1924 was $738,500. In 1925, 1926, and 1927 the assessment was $743,600. On January 30, 1928, the plaintiff paid the real estate taxes assessed against it under protest. The value of the plaintiff's Cudahy property, as scheduled by plaintiff in the income tax return for the year 1927, was $789,362. The book value of the property at the time of sale, as indicated in the 1928 report of the president to the stockholders, was greater than the sum at which the property was assessed.
The property was listed for sale in 1926 for $1,500,000. In April, 1928, the property was sold to the Geo. J. Meyer Manufacturing Company for $250,000. In the report to the stockholders the statement is made that “the annual carrying charges have been approximately $60,000, and it was considered advisable to dispose of the property at the best price obtainable and save the expense.”
It appears from the evidence that plaintiff at no time appeared before the board of review in an effort to secure a reduction of its assessment.
The case was tried before the court; findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed, and judgment ordered dismissing the complaint. The court found as a fact that the assessment under attack represented the fair market value of the property for tax purposes. The court further found that the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of plaintiff lacked probative force because of their unfamiliarity with the property and their lack of knowledge of sales of similar or comparable property during 1927 or prior thereto.
Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael and Suel O. Arnold, all of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Edward G. Minor, City Atty., of Cudahy (C. Stanley Perry, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.
[1] The authorities in this state clearly set forth the rule that the assessor's valuation is prima facie correct, and will not be set aside in the absence of evidence showing it to be incorrect. State ex rel. Miller v. Thompson, 151 Wis. 184, 138 N. W. 628;State ex rel. Althen v. Klein, 157 Wis. 308, 147 N. W. 373;State ex rel. Kimberly-Clark Co. v. Williams, 160 Wis. 648, 152 N. W. 450;Peninsular Power Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 195 Wis. 231, 218 N. W. 371.
[2] In this case the attack upon the correctness of the assessment was by the testimony of three real estate experts, all of whom limited their testimony to the opinion that the property has not enhanced in value between 1927, the year of the assessment under attack, and 1928, when the sale was made. There was no other attack made upon the assessment. There was no detailed examination of the basis upon which the assessment was made; hence cases such as State ex rel. Oshkosh Country Club v. Petrick, 172 Wis. 82, 178 N. W. 251;State ex rel. Pierce v. Jodon, 182 Wis. 645, 197 N. W. 189;State ex rel. Gisholt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Bd. of Review of City of Fond Du Lac
...Co. v. Williams, 160 Wis. 648, 152 N.W. 450;State ex rel. Pierce v. Jodon, 182 Wis. 645, 197 N.W. 189;Worthington Pump & Machinery Co. v. Cudahy, 205 Wis. 227, 237 N.W. 140. [2] A Board of Review is not an assessing body but rather a quasi-judicial body whose duty it is to hear evidence ten......
-
Highlander Co. v. City of Dodgeville
...actions under sec. 74.73, Stats., on the merits and in each denied relief to the taxpayer. These are Worthington Pump & Machinery Corporation v. Cudahy, 205 Wis. 227, 237 N.W. 140;Rahr Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 225 Wis. 401, 274 N.W. 291;Wisconsin Malting Co. v. Manitowoc, 225 Wis. 393, 274......
-
McArthur v. State (In re Ryerson's Estate)
...tax purposes. This amendment did little more than to codify the existing law upon the subject. Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Cudahy, 1931, 205 Wis. 227, 237 N.W. 140, and cases cited. By its terms it applies only to actions and proceedings involving such values. “Such values” clearl......
-
State ex rel. Flambeau Paper Co. v. Windus
...by the owner and the price at which he listed the property for sale might be considered in fixing an assessment. Worthington Pump Corp. v. City of Cudahy (Wis.) 237 N. W. 140. Upon like reason the matters above stated were properly for consideration. They were in the nature of admissions by......