Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-08-13
preme Court Of this State as we'll Us

preme Cour, Of this State as we'll Us
others.
And upon these points, cites and
reviews the State v. Central Pacific R. !
R. Co., 9 Nevada 49, SO; State v. c.
P. R. R. Co., FL New, 122, I76; and
closes as follows: .
From the views herein expressed
does it not necessarily follow that the
State Board Of Assessors could not !
value any particular species Of prop
erty without dividing the same into
classes having reference to their char
acter and value on some sensible bas-
is? The Glasses of property which
the Board was authorized to make,
could not be founded upon odious,
absurd or unreasonable distinction.
The classes adopted must be based
upon reasonable and actual differences
otherwise the provisions Of the Con-
stitution requiring a uniform and equ-
al rate Of assessment and taxation
would be violated and the action of
the Board would be null and void. The
Board has no power to make classes
of property concerning lots in
towns and cities upon which are erect
ed two story brick or frame buildings
of certin dimensions at so much per
front foo, without reference to their
utility, business purposes, occupancy,
or cash value. Such classification
would exhibit a greater dementia than
the one referred to as being run mad
in Commonwealth V. Patton, So Penn.
Statutes, 25S. The Board grasped the
thought that it had no authority to
value all horses in the State at so
much per head, and divided them into
classes Of property, with reference to
their value as work horses, and stock
horses etc, etc. 1t could not say that
all grey horses could be valued at $1oo
each and all sorrel horses could be
valued at SIS
I'm fixing valuation for cattle the
Board also divided them into classes
of property to which they belonged
with reference to their value, as beef
cattle. stock cattle. mich cows, ETC.
etc. and did not put the registered
thoroughbred colt in the same class
as stock cattle. The Board could not
value all cattle belonging to A in
Eagle Valley at so much per head, and
| in Carson Valley belonging to B al
so much per head. The Board if it
had attempted to value land in this
State would, in the first instance have
been compelled to divide the same into
! classes, such as cultivated land. I'M
! improved land, grazing l@1ds, barren
! lands, etc, etc, at SO much per acre.
This does not mean that each acre
OF land must be of the same value
This would in most instances, if not
in all, be impossible; but it does mean
that the classes adopted by the Board
must be selected with reference to the
value attaching to the particular prop
erty belonging to this class of prop
erty. So OF railroads. The Board had
no Jurisdiction, power or authority. to
value any railroad at so much per
mile without first selecting the classes
Of property to which it belonged. and
the selection of the classes must have
been made with reference to the con
stituents alta ching to that particular
class. 1t had no power to assess q
railroad, or any other kind OF proper
ty, to the Individual owner thereof By
name. or with sole reference to the
number Of miles without dchniteI,
placing it within classes OF property
having reference to the value OF al
property within that class. This the
board tailed to do.
5 There has been much discussion, i,
t the opinions of the Supreme Cour
of this State, as to the proper meth
Cd OF arriving 1t the value of railroad
for the purpose OF assessment.
: would serve no useful purpose to re
t view these cases. They all deal witt
cases of alleged excessive taxation,
subject not here necessary to be dis
> cussed
:: IF | were to venture a suggestion
t on this subject it would be to the ei
= feet that uniformity in the assessmer
, Of property can only be secured b
u the election of intelligent, impartia
: and honest men to Office. who wi
/ strictly adhere to the provisions OF tn
e Constitution of this State and asses
= all property OF every kind at its tru
cash value.
} Railroads are of more compile
y character than the other species {
property. above named. and it is al
y gued by complainant that it cannot b
divided into classes of property III
der the present act But be that as
'e may, it is apparent that the attempte
IS valuation in this case cannot, eithe
q upon reason or authority. be sustaine
because the action taken by the Stat
& Board of Assessors in valuing the
P. R. R. by name without making ar
5 class of property OF railroads. was NJ
u within the power granted by the a
Il under consideration, and upon TIL
ground alone. without passing upo
II the other points, my conclusion is TIL
NJ complainant is entitled to the injun
le ton prayed for.
10 "Let the decree be entered accor'
l. ingly."
I'd
tn q
~ ASK eA9 9hD