Omaha daily bee., 1902-04-12
thus they were denied a hearing without
previous notice u such denial.
Costa on Councilmen

thus they were denied a hearing without
previous notice u such denial.
Costs on CounciImen
On the above recited facts I find that the
action OF the board OF equalization over
ruling the complaints filed upon procure.
ment Of the Real Estate exchange did not
estop the REALTORS with reference to their
five complaints and was In no sense a
matter OF adjudication which torpaae IN
quiry into the merits OF. the complaints OF
said REALTORS. Upon said five complaints |
find further, that the action OF, the board
complaints by REALTORS was a sanction Of
the suniciency Of said complaints In form
and substance and that the d OF
Hascall, Mount, Trostler, Whitehorn and
Karr. who alone have answered In this
case, was capricious, willful and arbitrary
reIators and that thereby said REALTORS were
deprived OF the right to have reviewed the
proceedings OF the said Board OF Equanza-
ton with reference to their above COM
plants by error proceedings for the want
Of a final Judgment and that therefore,
Irrespective OF the final results Of this ac-
after TO be set forth. the costs OF the case
should be taxed against said Isaac s. Has
liam Il. Whitehorn and Myron ID. karr and
judgement rendered accordingly.
writ would he imperative.
While I End that technically the REALTORS
are entitled to a. writ of mandamus TOT
certain purposes 1 find further that in its
discretion this court should not issue the
state in detail, and these reasons are:
1. The manner In which companies and
ASSOCIATIONS incorporated under tne Iaws
shall be assessed In prescribed by section ~,
chapter lxxvii, Compiled Statutes, and this
method / find is exclusive of any other
method. 1t is, however, abortive, II not
unconstitutional, as to the four OF the
SorPosatlon Sri eSelS Sa NC OF ae me 70, 5sieRhI ree
quires the market or real value OF the
corporate stock to be assessed after deduct
rate Indebtedness is twice deducted. once
In fixing the market or real value of the
stock and again by an actual satisfaction
required by the statute.
2. The alternative writ, even as amended,
shows that the basis OF valuation Tor as
Of the real value of all property assessed
tons and its mandate requires the re-
basis employed generally and to bring the
property of the i've public service corpora
f B9 see sHoHe T snd & ehs sp 70 lx taSf e compiied
required to be assessed at its fair value.
native writ and thereby the respondents
would be required to violate the express
provisions OF sections I and > aforesaid. "
the averments in the alternative writ are
8. 1t is extremely doubtful whether the
s ss a o Soafd OF OF e eae fiSs o has power e
review the proceedings of the Board OF
Review. | suggest that this is doubtful
without definitely committing myself or
that proposition.
/ do not hesitate, however, to recommend
and do recommend, that in the exercise oi
it's discretion this court shall refuse &
issue a peremptory writ and that II shall
dismiss this action at the costs of the an
swering respondents, Isaac s. Hascall
David tt. Mount, Simon Trostler, William
b. whitehorn and Myron d: Karr. All Of
which is respectfully submitted.
ROBERT RYAN. Referee.