Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-03-24
RAISE OF TAXES
WAS LAWFUL.
Supreme Court UphOlds Action Of
County Board Of Equalization
INCREASE Is 90 PER CENT.
Number Of Husine.. Hooks Anected
- the Decision New Trial Or
dered In Jennings ~ Pratt.


The Supreme Court delivered an opin-
ion today In the case of the state. w.
on the relationship 81 Jennings Bros
Investment company. petitioner. VI the
County Board 81 Equalization respond
cntr. denying the relief prayed for.
This was an action "a procure the
setting aside by the supreme court "
Ill order made by the county board ~
equalization at a meeting held 10 June,
issS. Al this netting the board decided
that changes were necessary In the
valuations made by the county asses
sof ON real estate IN Salt Lake city IN
order 20 make the assessments conform
TO the true cash value ~ the property.
Changes wcr. accordingly made which
raised the valuation Of real estate In
eight Of the business blocks % the city,
from South Temple 10 Fourth south
street betwoene State aud West Temple
streets. also tie blocks between First
and Third South and State and Second
East one one side and those between
First and Third south and West Tenn
pie and First West on the other max
Ing n dozen blocks In all. ~ per cent.
The board also reduced number 81
other districts In different parts OF the
city.
me icnninsr Bros. commended that
this order was Unauthorized and be-.
yond the Jurisdiction Of the board FOR
the reason that no notice OF the change
was given IN" property holders. The
Investment company then pctitioncd
the supreme Court for writ OF cer-
tiorari to have the valuations thus
made by the board declared void.
The court holds that the objection q
petitioners 90 the action Of the board
IL not tenable and that the board had
the right. under the Constitution % the
state. 10 Increase the valuation 81 the
property N IN their Judgment II was
necessary In order IN make IL conform
"a the constitutional standard 81 yalu-
alton. The court also holds that the
validity of the tax does not depend up
on a regular judicial proceeding; that
the nature Of the duties u the board,
the urasc- of the people ana the nccca..
sitter of government. have established
n different method OF procedure In tax
alton matters from that pursued In
courts. and the pursuing u such
method has always been regarded. due
process OF law.
Tn. court then finds that the county
board Of equalization had Jurisdiction
20 adopt the resolution and TO raise the
nrscnsInent and hence denies the relief |
prayed for.
tn. opinion II by chief Justice
Iiartch. Justice Miner and Justice
naskin concur.
REVERSAL ORDERED.
The Supreme cour, also delivered an
opinion today In the case Of Thomas
w. Jennings et al. appellants. vs. o. T.,
Pratt 81 nj. reversing the Judgment "
IN. trial court and ordering a new trial.
This case was an appeal from judT-
ncnt OF non.nuit rendered by Judge
cherry In the law department of the
Third district court. ON the isth Of Mo-
vcmbcr. 1sps.
Piaintlfra brought action against the
defendants 10 recover the sum OF 1850
the amount OF a promlssory note which
plaintiffs alleged was sold 10 them, By
the paysc. Lorenzo Petit The note was
executed 10 Pcttit by O. l.. Pratt as
secretary " the North Salt Lake AHso-
citation. Hudson Smith. one % the de-.
PENDANTS, IN an answer denied the ox-
irence Of the association and that
Pratt executed the note ON his own re-
nponnibillty.
In determining the case the court
takes up the question 81 non-sult, re-
ghrdlenr OF the plcadlngs.
The testimony u q. y. Pratt as given
at the trial u a. followa.
"a am familiar with the note. The
signature Was written by myself In
Hudson Smiths ufiice IN tho dag when
II bears date. there were present, lIud.
son Hmith. myself, L. u, kinney, y. ~.
Kinney. Thomas W. Jennings, John n.
Cannon. Lorenzo rcttlt and others.
The matter under discussion was gct-
ting a deed for the COPPER plant site
from Mt. Petit. The association had
not raised enough means To pay MIR
lirttit by $500 We could not get the
deed from Mr. Petit until We made
some proyiEo for securing him for $3.50.
Those present agreed 10 meet that
amount AMI make the not. good. The
not. was drawn up ana I was requested
by the gentlemen present 10 Hign H.
Mr, Smith was one ~ those present
The note was executed In thr presence
ut Tho .meetiugi II wits handed e. Air.
John ". Cannon. who represented Mr..
Petit"
similar testimony was given by other
Witnesses,
Tested by the rules ~ evidence the
court nnha that the testimony offered
AT the trial by plaintiffs prrcludcs "a
judgment OF non.nuit. Having reached
this conclusion the court orders re-
Nersai ana directs Judge Cherry to
grant new trial and allow ,he parties
TO amend their plcadlngr. " they desire
~ do 20.
This opinion Is also by chief Justice
liartch. Justices Miner anf Hnskln
conourring.