The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-17

was not objected to by the township board
Of assessors and was approved by tie
county board of equalization.
This valuation, therefore, vas the clear
duty Of the auditor to place upon the tax
list and tax duplicate, with tie taxes
charseablc upon It, unless under tic cir
cunlstarccs and il accordance with the
mode of procedure provided il sections
259, go, 24I and oi2 Of the General Stat
utes.
The auditor has special jurisdiction
and the facts which give that jurisdiction
cannot be presumed, but must appear az
fr,ratively. It IS only by the provisions
Of section SIS, General Statutes, that the
presumption in favor OF the existence Of
all facts necessary to give regularity to
the antecedent proceedings were i'll favor
of the auditors deed under sale for dclin-
quent taxes. That presumption is certified
to the tax tile and goes 10 further.
In all other cases these facts must be
proved. III this case it IS not claimed or
even intimated that the auditor himself
proceeded under the circumstances ard i'll
the mode prescribed and sections 239, 24o,
81 and 242, supra.
1t is therefore not necessary further to
consider sections in this case. The follow
ing is the statement of the action Of the
auditor in petition which is not denied in
the return and therefore must be accepted
for the purpose Of this appeal rs true:
$50 the matter stood until the month OF
-, 1891, when the said auditor added
to the valuation Of the said property $50,
600 and entered that property Oh his list
and his tax duplicate as Of the value Of
$3.50, 900, and thereby charged that property
and your petitioner with the payment of
taxes amounting in the aggregate to S3,l0o,
instead Of S2,G25, which would have been
the tax on said property at the valuation,
alleging as the sole reason for such in
creased valuation (and no doubt correctly
The order Of one W. II. Ellcrbc, styling
himself comptroller general OF said State.
Had the comptroller general any authority
in law ior making the order like this one,
directing the auditor to arise the yaluatian
Of any particular property returned 70.
assessment and taxation?"
By section 2s7 the comptroller general
may direct the auditor by written order
to reduce the valuation Of the real or per-
sonal property, and nothing is said as 20
his power to order an increase in valuation.
Section 254 gives any person whose pro-
perty has been assessed above its true
value a right to appeal to the comptroller
general from the county board Of equaliza-
ton; an appeal, not from the act of the
anditor, but from the judgment Of the
board on a question Of value. Section 26l
provides that the comptroller general shall
prepare and transmit to the auditors al
proper forms and instructions which they
are required to use and obey. We do not
find anything in either Of these sections:
and our attention has not been called to any
section which gives the comptroller-general
the right to make an order, or to the
auditor the right to obey such an order,
him to raise the valuation Of per-
sonal property as made in any specific cases
and passed upon by the township and coun-
ty boards without change.
The right to appeal to the comptroller
general in cases of excessive valuation, Of
course cannot confer the right in any case
to increase the valuation. BY section
229, General Statutes, the auditor is ex-
pressly forbidden to increase the return as
made by any Taxpayer or his agent. except
by authority OF the board Of assessors.
In this case it is not claimed that the au-
ditor proceeded as in a case where the prop
erty may not have been listed at all, as
in section 229, or that there have been any
proper proceedings under sections 23o, 24O,
241 and 242. If the argument: as it now
stands, is valid, it is solely on the ground
that the same was increased by the order
of the comptroller-general.
It is trne that the conduct OF the auditor
is placed on an apparently different ground
in the case of the same relator vs.. the coun-
ty treasurer, but weare confined to the facts
as they were admitted to be when the case
was before Judge Hudson, from whose rui-
ing this appeal has been taken.
Weconclude, therefore, that in max
ing the order relied on the comptroller
general transcribed his jurisdiction
and that the auditor had no right to
obey the order and thus place upon bis
tax list and duplicate valuation other
than the valuation Of sl50,0G0 as the
same stood when il came to his hands |
sworn to by the president OF the bank,
without objection by one board and
with the approval OF the other board |
and upon which the taxes should be |
taxed on his duplicate.
In the view We have taken Of this
case it was tie plain ministerial! duty Of
the auditor to place this persona! prop
erty on his tax list and his tax dupli-
cate at sl5O,OO0, the valuation which
had i,een placed upon it by the oath OF
the president Of the bank and which
was passed without objection by the
township. and approved by the county
board and to charge it with the tax at
that valuation at s.: :025.06, and nothing
has occurred since to invest him with !
any discretionary power in reference
and the unauthorized order Of
the complroller-gencral has not changed |
bis relation thereto. i
Whenever 9 specific dnty is required !
BY law CT . particular officer un&t-
tended with the exercise ofaGy degree |