Omaha daily bee., 1906-01-14

made Pittsburg, Cincinnati Chicago &
st. Louis Railway company against
Backus, 1854 L. s., 431; Western Union Tel
egraph company against Taggart, lGS U. s..
L; Adams Express company against Ohio,
165 L. s.. 22s; Coulter against Louisville
& Nashville Railroad company, 1876 L. s..
599-6O9.
1.-THE evidence in this case does not show
such fraud. True 1t is, evidence has been
introduced to show that sales of real es-
tate were made in various counties.
AS said by the court in Coulter against
Louisville & Nashville Railroad company:
"Tt is obvious that the accidental sales
in given year may be a misleading guide
TO average values.
Cannot BE Overthrown.
Nor can the judgment OF the assessing
hoard be overthrown by the opinions of
two or three persons in each of the several
counties in the state. that property other
than railroads was assessed not to exceed
20 to 80 per cent Of it's real or actual value.
The value OF property generally is a mat
ter Of individual Judgment and. in this
case. the testimony of the various wit
nesses is conflicting. some testifyins that
real and personal property other than rail-
roads was assessed at figure much be-
such assessments were the full value OF
the property,
AS to the final assertion. that the board
in fixing the valuation OF complainant
property for assessment determined such
valuation by taking the total value OF the
stocks and bonds upon the entire system
of compliments road and divided the same
by the total number of miles, and thus de-
termined the value OF compliments prop
erty in the state of Nebraska, without de-
Quoting from the value OF such stocks and
bonds property of complainant located In
! other states not necessarily used i'm the ac-
tual business of the company, and which
necessarily assisted I'm fixing the value Of
. such stocks and bonds. thereby importing
into the state for assessment property over
which the state had no Jurisdiction. If it
were true that the state board in valuing
complainant's property. based such valua-
tion only upon the stock and bond basis,
without making deductions OF property per-
manently located In other states not neces-
\ sarily used in the actual business OF the
company. such assessment would be void
under the decision of the supreme court in
| Fargo against Hart, 1893 IT, s. $50.
As Additional Faetors.
| while IL is true that under the evidence
\ IL appears that the board. in determining
the valuation Of complainant's property
did consider as one factor the value of
| the stocks and bonds without making such
deductions. II is also true that they con-
sidered as additional factors the value OF
the tangible property and the value based
upon the earnings OF the road within the
state. In other words, Il clearly appears
that the valuation was not determined
/ solely upon the basis of the value OF the
stocks and bonds. II was the duty OF the
| board TO ascertain the value of complain
| ants road not by any one process. but
| by inquiring into all OF the elements which
| are naturally and usually considered In
1 the commercial world In determining
values. This was properly done by the
board. The mere fact that they may have
considered some evidence which was Inn
proper without making the deduction
| enumerated does not render their action
void. A mistake in judgment on the part
OF assessing officers does not warrant the
interference OF a court By Injunction II
/ appears from the evidence that after usins
various methods 10 dstermine the value Of