Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1899-03-30
TAX CASE DECIDED.
The Northern Pacific Land
Tax Case Goes Against
Stutsman County.
United States District Judge
Amldon Makes Sweeping
Decision.
No Penalty and Interest Al
loWed-EStimate of Sum to
be Paid County.

The effect of the decision ls that
Stutemsn county loses the penalty and
interest on all the taxes assessed against
these railroad lands, but will get taxes
on the original valuation. This loss OF
penalty and interest Is very large. The
oounty's claim has been made as high as
$4,000. This was figured before the
decision in the Wells county tax case.
after which decision the claim would
have been cut somewhat. Under Judge
Amidon's decision it is stated by sttor.
neys that Stutsman county will not get
over 81, 900 for the claim.
The court holds that the taxes for '93
and '94 are void. This being 90. they
can be relieved and collected and Attor.
ney Ellsworth thinks that eventually the
ounty will get about $4,000 ss tue
entire amount for delinquent taxes.
This Is the beginning Of the end of the
most important litigation the county
ever had.
1t ls claimed that no proposition for a
compromise which has been made here.
tofore has been better than this amount
which the county advisers believe vii!
be realized from the decision. The
proposition of w. B. s. Trinble to com.
promise on basis Of 75 cents an acre,
with interest at per cent, is said to have
been not as good for the county as the
decision will allow
The court holds that the territorial
tax of 1889 is void because the state
board of equalization was prohibited by
the state law from levyjng q tax for that
purpose in excess of mills on the
dollar.
The county taxes OF '9S and '94 IRE
void for two reasons; first because they
we're levied by the board Of equalization
instead OF the board OF county commls.
sioners Second because the levies are
not based on any such itemized state
ment ss required by law The judge
says the record leaves no doubt that the
levy in both cases was made by the
board of equalization. Under the de-
cislon Of the supreme court o: this state,
in case of Shsttasck vs. Smith, N. d.
56, 70, the lev,es are also void, for the
reason they are based on 70 sufficient
itemized statement.
All taxes charged against lands that
we're improperly described by symbols
such as we're condemned IN the case OF
Power vs.. Larrabee. by our supreme
court, are also void. The fact that part
Of these descriptions might be held suf.
6cient does rot cure the defect as to the
imperfect part. The judge holds strict
ly to the rule Of the legal description as
laid down by the above decision, which,
while merely technical, is q complete
objection to the payment OF the tax.
The state levies of 1891, 1892 and 1894
are void for the reason that they were
made by rate instead of sk ecihc amounts.
AZ required by section 4S, chapter 100 of
laws of 1891. This was the Wells coun-
ty case. Counsel for county claims that
section 48 OF chapter 100, laws 1891, was
was repealed by chapter 106 of laws of
that tho two are in conflict, but court
holds that the conflict must be irrecon-
clable for the doctrine to be given ef-
fect, which ls not 60 in this case.
When any part of q years tax is held
vo d neither the penalty nor interest
can be allowed as to the balance of that
years tax.
The conrt holds that the roads claim
to over valuation of the Northern Pc.
citiu lands Is not we'll founded: also
holds the roads claim that the assess |
ments we're invalid because made bv a |
deputy assessor, IS not good claim. |
The testimony hs to the over valuation |
is not clear enough and the receivers are
guilty Of gross negligence IN not apply.
ing to the boards OF equalization anthor
lzed to correct the assessments which
are claimed excessive. Anyone com.
planning OF unjust assessment must first
exhaust remedies provided by law, and
must then apply to the court promptly
so that the court can make the assess
ment of the value of the property as
nearly as possible at the time when the
original assessment is made. In North
Dakota this rule is specially applicable,
where values of property are changing
rapidly. The state supreme court holds
this view 10 the case Of First National
Bank Of Hlllsboro vs. Steenson.
Except as above, the claims of the
railroad are sustained.