Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-03-04
LEGAL LORE.
upinioH> Of Judge ". W. Hoover of tae
 Fir,t Judicial Disirici Court.

upiniaH> Of Judge ". W. Hoover of tae
 rir,t Judiciai Di-trici Court
 h the Flrst District Court, in and
 for Pima county, Territory O; Arizona.
 The Southern Pacific Railroad Com
 pauy vs. R. |. Paul.
 This IS an action to euioin the defend
 ant as sheriff from selling the property
 mentioned in the complaint for de,in- quent taxes for the fiscal year A. D. lssI-2
 Cnder t1e provisions oi the Revenue Laws e deed made ID pursuance Of such sale being prima igcis evidence of the regularity Of the proceedings upon the assessment tax levy, etc, and therefore B cloud upon the title though such pro- ceedings be void.
 Il is alleged in the complaint and not denied in the answer that tAe Board of Equalization upon its own motion added Co and changed the valuation Of the property from the amounts asses sed by the Assessor tO the amounts named in tue complaint, and Gefeadeut in his brief, presents tine argument ''whatevcr objection might have been taken to be action of tLe Board ci Equalization in adding SlS9,OUJ, with out any written complaint having been filed was waived by plaintiff appearing before the Board 0. Equalization and cOntesting the raise and, to quote plaintiffs brief the record of the pro- cecdiuEs of the Board are conclusive. As will appear upon review Of ths question It Is decisive of this case so 1. P as it is inY0ved therein. Section ,, Chapter 23, Comp. Laws 3f0. provides. the Board of Equalization shall have power to determine all complaints made ln regard to the assessed value Of any property, and may change and correct any valuation, either by adding thereto or deduc;iDg therefrom, if they deem the sum fixed by the assessment roll too smai! CT too great. whether said sum was fixed by the owner or the assessor; and f the Board Of Equalization shall find t necessary to add to the assessed valuation Of any property on the assess ment roll, they shall direct the Clerk to giyc notice to the persons interested by letter deposited in the pOstollice or ex- press or otherwise, naming the day when tEey shall act in that case and reasonable time to appear Our statute IS a re-enactmant of the California statute as 1t existed prior to to the adoption of the new constitution. h coustrulng these provisions the Cali iOrnla Supreme court held in Fatten and Green, i3 Cal, 330, that there must be complaint or something analogous there tO and notice mus. issue thereon. The statute, Gs t then stood. not providing Tor aLy LOtica. But the statute being subsequently amended Go ats present form n People vs. Reynolds, 1S Cal. li2. # was held that the Board could Jnly correct errors, and then only on a proper uutlce Of tine matter cnanged.and ,Eat such Board was vested with no ar- litrary power. The complaint was here determined to be a iur.sdictiOnal pre- -eqWslte tO any acil0l by the Board.
 lu People ys. Flint. 3J Cal. G13. per ihOdes.C. J.: People vs. Reynolds Is ap- proved, tLartle fling of a complaint is | urisdIctioual, and the doctrine lad Town that tLe notice Is n the ua.ure of l ] summons.
 iu People ys. Goidtree. H4CR., S24. 1 Do complaint was filed but the Board l cted and then sent notice to the par les interested, and an action to cancel | heir order made by defendants aud by | hem contested was denied. The act of l he Board was held void and the doe ! rlEe announced that as the filing of a | was necessary to give iuris- | lctlon that an appearance could not | valve the noncompliance with the law. ltIuE and approving People vs. Rey- .oius, and People vs. Flint. Supra.
 ILIs, then, Is the well settled doe rine of the State where originated our WI -taIIte. and the justice of the rule | 8 also Uu4uestiOuable. Upon these au- hOTltIes and the reasoning there con aIned It is the opinion of the Court that he action o' ihe Board of Equalization 3 charging the assessed values of p.aiut- I s property Was yCld. and Gs the "du- hcate assessment Tolf upon which the herIm proceeded was not a copy of the egai assessment, hls acts are without uthCuLy m attempting t0 enforce the aymerIt of tine tax upon the property Inch had is valuation changed by the .oard. By the provision Oi Sec on 8. Chapter B, Compiled Laws j3G
 Territorial tax IS levied upon tele- raph Enss, ''iu lieu of all other taxes"
 The attempt Co assess plaintiffs tele- raph line Is in cCuirayeHtion thereof ld void. There is left for consideration the ems:
 ''Eeserv4'ian with improvements at iilsto. Reservation with improvements at lutal0.' It is assumed that this IS one attempt
 designate certain real property. oUgh IL would be difficult to establish at iact by a simple inspection Of these tries.
 The avermeut of the complaint Is ad- ! .tted by the answer that al! land as- sseu Co plaintiff without the town site of lcsCn Is owned by the United States 1veruEeut.
 The fee therefore is not assessable !. delguaeIt claims that plaintiffs E ,ht Cf possession and improvements S e assessabie. ' hat toe what t..e assessor mean. x a iucunben; upon him to go state. the [ rm should be the interest claim, and session of in and to tthe real property scribIng it. or its equivalent. Tc any ( rec be gwen tO thlS description itap- .as to the land itself and not plaintiffs J jim to 1t. And Section Chapter 23. 'mpleu Laws 3}3 eXempts the land [ pm taxation. -A possession uf and | Jim to public lands of the United D ates k property and as such is taxable n -he claimant Peopie vs. Black Dia- md c. M. C., g Cal. J4. But there 4 iy be a great difference between the sr Tue of >uch possession and the value u fine title united to such possession ! d upon this difference the claimant (, mot be iorcsd to pay taxes. u Iet judgment be entered for plaintiff C accordance with the prayer of the ti n1lain-. WILSON V. HoovEe,
 Ass0cIate Justice. cI
 [. S. Land Patents.
 -ue following |. $. Land Talents -"