{ "id": 8724347, "name": "Equalization Board v. Land Owners", "name_abbreviation": "Equalization Board v. Land Owners", "decision_date": "1889-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "516", "last_page": "519", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ark. 516" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "30 Ark., 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284-5" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "33 Ark., 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725512 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/33/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill., 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "43 Wis., 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 11285538 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/43/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark., 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309176, 1309526 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0518-02", "/ark/49/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ark., 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894467 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark., 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309176, 1309526 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0518-02", "/ark/49/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ark., 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894467 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0243-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 303, "char_count": 5290, "ocr_confidence": 0.72, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0096163291166972e-07, "percentile": 0.5418410494202558 }, "sha256": "bd7cf3fad6acf126348891c36de0bc64de5e58d809a64f5f48917e39b4557d43", "simhash": "1:c3eafc91c29e5b48", "word_count": 922 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:57.887856+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Equalization Board v. Land Owners." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt was not a ground for injunction that the assessor had failed to append the proper oath to his return. Moore v. Turner, 43 Ark., 243.\nThe failure to give the notice required by section 52 of the act of 1887, does not affect the jurisdiction of the board of equalization. Pulaski County Equalization Cases, 49 Ark., 518; Howard v. State, 47 Ib., 431.\nReverse the decree and dismiss the bill.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, and T. D. Crawford, for appellant.", "G. W. Norman, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Equalization Board v. Land Owners.\n1. Taxes : Assessor\u2019s return : Injunction.\nThe failure of a county assessor to append to Ms return of real property assessed, an affidavit in the form prescribed by the statute, is no ground for enjoining the clerk of the county court from extending the assessment on the tax books. Moore v. Tttrner, 43 Ark., 243.\n2. Same: Equalization of assessments: Notice of raised valuation.\nThe jurisdiction of the county board of equalization, to raise the assessor\u2019s valuation of property, is not affected by their failure to give the notice required by section 52 of the act of 1887, which provides that when the board shall raise the valuation of any property, they shall give notice thereof to the owner \u201cby postal card or otherwise through the mails;\u201d and it is error to enjoin the clerk because of such failure, from extending the board\u2019s valuation on the tax books.\nAPPEAL from Ashley Circuit Court.\nC. D. Wood, Judge.\nThis suit was brought by certain tax payers of Ashley county to restrain the county clerk from extending upon the tax books of that county for the year 1887 an increased or \u2018 \u2018 raised \u2019 \u2019 valuation of their lands made by the county board of equalization. After the action was commenced all the other land owners of the county were made parties plaintiff and the board were made defendants. The complaint states: That the assessor appraised the plaintiffs\u2019 lands at their true market value; that the board of equalization proceeded to raise the assessor\u2019s valuation and gave to the plaintiffs no notice of such increase in value, by postal card or otherwise through .the mails, as provided by statute; and that the clerk was about to extend the increased valuation on the tax books. 'The complaint, as amended, also alleged that the assessor failed to affix to his assessment the affidavit required by the .statute. The answer admits that the statutory notice w\u00e1.s \u2022not given, but alleges that \u2018 \u2018 timely notice was given by personal communication and by publication -in a newspaper published in the township; \u2019 \u2019 that none of the plaintiffs were aggrieved by want of sufficient notice, and that four of the \u2022original plaintiffs had appealed from the action of the board to the county court where, upon a hearing of the appeal,, the valuation of the board was sustained. The answer also alleged that the board had only raised the valuation of the land to its actual value. A demurrer to the complaint was \u2022overruled and a demurrer to the answer sustained. The \u2022court having found that the board raised the valuation of plaintiffs\u2019 lands and neglected to give notice thereof as required by sec. 52 of the act of March 28, 1887, decreed that the extension of the board\u2019s valuation on the tax books should be perpetually enjoined. The board appealed. Section 52 of the act referred to provides that the board of equalization, \u201c where it raises the valuation of any property, personal or real, shall give to the owners of the property so 'raised in valuation or their agents, notice by postal card of otherwise through the mails, of such increase in value, stating the valuation as returned by the assessor and the valuation as fixed by the board,\u201d and advising such owners that they may appear before the county court and show cause \" why the valuation of their property should not have been raised.\u201d Acts 1887, pp. 172, 173. Section'31 of the 'same act (p. 163) provides that the assessor shall append to his return of the assessment of real estate an affidavit that the foregoing is correct, and that he has \u2018 \u2018 appraised each tract or lot of land * * * at its true value in money, and not at what it would bring at auction or at a forced sale.\u201d The affidavit of \u25a0 the assessor referred to in the complaint in this case was that \u2018 \u2018 the foregoing is correct, \u2019 \u2019 and he had appraised \u2018 \u2018 each tract * * * at its true value as it was rendered to \u201d him \u201c tinder oath by the tax payers, owners, agents and all other sources of information that\u201d he \u2018\u2018had been able to ascertain.\u201d\nW. E. Atkinson, Attorney General, and T. D. Crawford, for appellant.\n1. Failure to give notice as required by statute does not invalidate the proceedings of the board. 49 Ark., 518; 43 Wis., 620; 42 Id., 502; 42 Ark.,-563; 41 Id,, 531; Acts 1887, sec. 52; 76 Ill., 201.\n2. The remedy was by appeal to the county court. Injunction was not the remedy. 49 Ark., 518; High on In]., secs. 486-7.\n3. A plain remedy is also pointed out by secs. 5857-8, Mansf. Dig.\nG. W. Norman, for appellees.\n1. No notice having been given, the increase of valuation by the board was void. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5201; Acts 1887, p. 172, etc., sec. 52, etc. Equity will restrain the execution of void judgments. Mansf. Dig.,, p. 77o, sec. 3731 >' 33 Ark., 633. It is the only forum for land owners having no notice to get relief. 30 Ark., 279, 284-5; lb. 594; 33 lb., 778; 30 lb., 609." }, "file_name": "0516-01", "first_page_order": 568, "last_page_order": 571 }