The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1871-09-15
Taxation Of improvements by Tenants on
Leased Coal Lands.
OPINION OF JUDGE ELwELL.

1NDDtTt tOTTtll anu NO. y, sept, H.,
Charles ID. Norton, 1871. In Equity
VS.. Motion for prp-
q. q; Murphy. and liminary injunc-
j. J. Caughlin. tion.
The bill of the complainants, in sub.
stance charges, that they,as lesscs of the
Locust Mountain Coal and Iron Compa.
ny, have erected upon the land leased,
a coal breaker, dwelling houses, ma
chlnery and other Improvements for
the purpose OF carrying on the business
OF mining and preparing coal as they
have Il right to do under their lease,
and that these improvements are held
and owned by them distinct from the
freehold, and are personal property
that the Commissioners of Columbia
county have illegally and Improperly
assessed and valued said improvements,
and the Supervisors of Conyngham
township, and School Directors of the
School District of said township, and
the said Commissioners have illegally
assessed taxes thereon, and sevcrally
issued warrants to the defendants us
collectors of such taxes, and praying
that said collectors may be restrained
from further collection of said taxes.
BY the act of 30 April, 1911, Purd 0i9,
houses, land, and all other real estate
not exempt by law from taxation, are
made subject to taxation for State and
county purposes. BY the act of 10 May,
ISL, Purd. Dig. 925, all objects of taxa.
ton are required to be assessed accord
ing to the actual value.
The act of 1911 Is comprehensive in
its terms. Under it, although not nam
ed in the act, warehouses, coal lots, coal
shutes, machine shops, wood yards and
Eos Il al
as such. Rail Road vs.. Berkr county &
Barr 20.
1t would seem, however, from the
allegation in the compliments bill that
because the houses, breaker and other
improvements were put upon the leased
land for the purpose Of carrying on the
business of mining and preparing coal
advantageously, they are claimed to be
personal property, not liable to he taxed
as such, because not named in the stat
ute, and are not to be taken into consid-
Grafton in valuing the land, because as
between the landlord and tenant the
buildings may be removed during the
term.
These buildings are .fciugS for the
time bcing-ihcy arc dnHcrcd to tie free
hoLd, and form part and parcel of it.
When an assessor finds land with q
house upon it, he may assess both the
house and the land together, or he may
assess the land and house separately
But If he finds that the house has bcei
erected by the tenants of the land, he
would not be justified in refusing &c
assess ii at all.
BY the act of Assembly, tenants are
required to pay all taxes assessed dur
ing their occupancy. If, therefore, the
land at its full value, including all im.
provements upon it were assessed, Ia.
| perhaps it should be) to the landlord OF
owner, the tenants could not be hearC
to complain that the land was valued
too high, on the ground that the im
| prevents were his and not the landlord $
| The landlord could not complain becaus,
his land would not IN fact be valued be
yond its market value. And if the in
terest of the landlord and tenant were
| separately valued, as was done by tn,
taxing officers and approved by the Su
| preme Court, in Logan VS.. Washington
county, 5, Casey 373, neither party
nor the public would have just cause o
complaint.
1t is worthy of remark that it doe
not appear that the land leased to tn
complainants is assessed at all other
wise than by the assessment of tn
buildings, breaker and Improvement
of which the bill makes complaint.
In England this question has beel
settled by "A direct adjudication. Reg
Guest Adolph a. Ellis 9j1 in which
was held that in estimating the rated6
value of property, machinery attache
to it ought to be taken into the accoun
without considering whether it was re-
or personal estate, or rhcthcr Il belonged
| he In M H.,
Rep. 2G3.
l hold, therefore, that the assessing 0
ficers had the right to assess this proI
erty.-1f the valuation was erroneou
the remedy in regard to the tax asseSse
by the county commissioners was b
appeal to them.-Kimber VS.. Schuy
kill county Harris 36S. Hughes v
Kline ct. al. 6 Casey $50.
f If, however, this conclusion is inco
rect, and the property is not liable
assessment, the complalnants have
full and complete remedy at law.
compelled to pay against their pr
5 test, they may by action recover baC
the taxes collected. Hospital VS.. Phi
> adelphia county II Harris 23O, and cas-
there cited and Commonwealth '
Stinger Casey I26.
The distinction recognized in the
cases between erroneous and illegal {
sessmonts is denied in the recent cas-
OF Wharton VS.. Borough of Birm ingha
Wright 37l and Clinton School DireC
ors appeal. & +. +. Smith 3lj. In Il
latter case it is said per Agnew
/ that call Of the cases assert the doctri
e that when the general power to assC
/. exists, the proper remedy for Wcg
taxation is by appeal to those to who
y the appeal Is required to be taken a
:, if none be given, neither the Comm
k Pleas nor this court can review (
If judgment of the taxing officers" If
# the exercise Of an honest judgment L
on the claim, the exemption was
l. fused, court of equity could not rev
e the judgment of the board by injul
tion. If on the other hand exempt
was wantOnly and maliciOusly REFUSE
y the remedy is against the directors p
sonally.
=" If this view of the law be correct it
Il decisive against the claim of compla
,s ants to equitable relief-IThey ha
4. failed to seek the remedy given
statute.
9 If the views of the court rs expires,
v, by Lewis +. j. in Hospital vs.. Phila,
TX county eacorrecteXpOstion of the /
in they are equally fatal to complaina
N motion.-No Court of Equity says J
of Justice Field in delivering tho opin
no of the Supreme Court of the Uni
States in the case of Dow VS.. city
of Chicago 3 vol. Legal Gazette 2jS, "v
90 allow its injunction to issue, to rcstri
their (the taxing oiiicers) action, exc,
ot where it may be necessary to prot
W the rights of the citizens whose prope
n. is taxed, and he has no remedy by
ordinary process or the law. 1t m
lv appear that the enforcement of the
y would lead to multiplicity Of suits
,ot produce irrepardble injury, or where
" property is real estate, throw II Gle
upon the title of the complainant,
fore the aid of court Of equity can
,,a invoked" Again he adds, And exc
IN where the special circumstances VIII
iLS we have mentioned exist, the party
W. whom an illegal tax is collected,
3i ordinarily ample remedy eltheragai
oi the officer making the collection
we the body to whom the tax is p.
ny Here such remedy existed. If the
1t.