Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1903-09-15
VALUATION OF
REAL ESTATE
[continued from, page IL

Cochran will be of interest to all
property owners:
Madison, Wisconsin
TO Members of Board of Rerieao:
Notwithstanding the statements
contained in the pamphlet of In
StructionS to Assessors and Boards OF
Review, the question is frequently
asked, whether the Board Of Review
have authority to change the val
uationS made by the assessor without
evidence showing that the assessors
valuations are too high or too low. In
the pamphlet mentioned it is said:
under present laws, the board
have no authority to change values
except upon evidence produced before
them. "-P SO.
"As already stated, they have
authority TO change valuations made
by the assessor only upon eUidence
taken or produced before Them
p. a..
The statements quoted above are
not made as expressing merely the
personal views of the members of this
commission. Section 1861, Stat. 1898
Asst Laws, p. 35), expressly provides
that,
1.-THE board Of review shall when
satisfied from the evidence taken that
the assessors valuation is too high
or too low, lower Or raise the same
accordingly"
This provision in Section 1861, con-
sidered in connection with the
| other provisions in the same section,
has been repeatedly construed by the
supreme court in accordance with the
statments quoted above. In Shove y.
ManitoDoc, 81 Wis, 5, it is said:
"The board OF review were author
lied to increase or lessen, the as
| SeSSment only upon being satisfied
| from the evidence taken that it was
too high or too low 1t is very
apparent that the enactment was for
the very purpose Of preventing the
board from arbitrarily increasing or
leSsening the amount of the as
SeSsment, as they could under previous
legislation. 1t was to prevent such
reduction or increase without evidence
or testimony and merely to satisfy
their own notions of justice or some
opinion based, perchance, upon some
casual statement made by some
citizen in good faith or otherwise. "
In State z. Lauler, 103 Wis, AGO.
after reciting the provision in Sec.
1861 quoted above, it is said:
1.-The clear intent of that language
is to place it beyond tie power of the
| board of review to change the val
uatiOn of real estate without evidence
and to require them to change such
valuation in accordance With
evidence"
In State v Lien, 1OS Wis, 316, the
| following statement is made:
THE assessors valuation, Moneys,
accounts, bonds, credits, notes and
mortgages, S3,000,' stood before the
board of review as prima Jdcie correct
with no duty or authority in that
boad to change it except on evidence
Sec. 1861, Stats. 1898; Shore V. Man
ito,ooc. 81 Wis, 5; State eX rel. Snaath v
Gaylord IS Wis, 306, State eX rel.
Heller LoaDler. 1O3 Wis. 400; State eX
rel. Ddas Dc S. L. Co. V. Pors, 107 Wis.
APO, Relator, as witness, denied
ownership of any money in banks or
elsewhere on May 1St.' and denied
ownership of one or two specific
securities as to which he was in
| terrogated. He, however, did not
testify that he was not the owner OF
credits to the amount of So, 200 in eX-
cess of his debts, nor did he offer any
other evidence tending to deny such
| fact. In that situation the board of
review had but one course to pursue,
namely, to refuse to change the as
SesSment roll. Realtors position
seems to be that because, by OBJ
lection. he challenged the correctness
of that roll, the same should have
been changed, unless supported by
evidence; for he asserts that certain
alleged securities in list produced
from the county registry were not
shown to evidence debts to him, and
some of them were shown not to do SO,
and thereupon urges that the as
seSsment Of $4,000 is not supported.
This contention is for the converse of
the true rule governing the conduct Of
boards of review, as declared by the
above cited authorizes. The as
sessnaent needs no support by eUidence
| an the first instance, but must stand,
unless shoaun to be incorrect by reasonably
direct and ADVANTAGEOUS Evidence"
In State V. Fuldrer, 100 Wis, Sc, it
appears from the statement of facts
that the relator has made application
to the board of review to lower the
valuation of certain property belong
ing to him. Also. that such ap-
Iplication was made and was ac-
complained by statement from the
relator of a comparison between the
values of his premises and others,
| asserting a relative generalization,
but that no sworn testimony was
given or offered upon the hearing, and
that the relator made no request to be
sworn in giving his Statment.
In the openion of the court in the
same case the following statement is
| made:
From the return it appears that no
evidence under oath was given or
offered before the board of review
| upon the REALTORS application to
reduce his assessments. In the absence
| of such Evidence, the board had no p0acer
| to reduce the UGludti0n. and their re-
fuSal to do so cannot: therefore, have
constituted breach of their duty or
an excess of their jurisdiction