Arizona republican., 1906-01-21
SUPREME COURT DIVIDED.
Continued from Page g.

Continued from Page y.
 character may be determined. either by the assessing officers of the county, or by the territorial board of equaliza- tion, so as to permit of any sub class ification for the purpose of equaliza> tion. Conceding, for the argument that the requiring in certain instances of listing of real estate by some de scription sufficient to identify it. and its description by common designation or name" does not go so far as to re Quire a description from which q sub classification of lands as mineral or non-mineral may be made. certainly we see nothing to prohibit extending upon the assessment roll the descripe tion of land beyond that required in the statute, so as to designate its par ticular character. nor reason why, if such designation appears to have been made uniformly throughout the terri tory. a classification based thereon may not be made for the purpose of equali- zation. Furthermore, we find in the provisions of paragraph 973 conferring upon the board of supervisors super. visory control over assessing officers and general legislative authority as to matters wherein their Jurisdiction, sui ficient power for them to require the assessor to note upon the assessment roll fin which of various ascertainable classes each piece of land falls. Pat. ented mines are readily ascertainable as such. Such classification, in fact. depends merely upon the description of the land as mineral, for by paragraph SS35 land is defined as expressly ex- cluding unpatented mines.
 Therefore, we construe the provision in paragraph SS77, authorizing the ter ri al r1f Fs, d, ish or add to the classifications specifi. cally mentioned, as conferring upon said board authority to require the county boards of equalization to make return, as a distinct class, of patented mines. or of any other sub- -classifica- tion of real estate appearing upon the assessment rolls. The petition discloses that the territorial board of equaliza, tion treated patented mines as a dis tinct class of lands. Therefore, we must assume, in the absence of con- trary averment, that the assessment rolls of the various counties furnished the necessary information, in the first instance. and that the boards of super visors, from the information thus af- forded, returned to the territorial board patented mines as a distinct class of real estate.
 There was further suggested, as an objection to the action of the board, a matter which seems to us not to be within the record as made by the ap- plication and demurrer. This is, that the board seeks to require the county officers to adopt for the purposes of county taxes the changes in valuations made by it. It may be said to appear inferentiaily in the application that the county of Cochise is proposing to collect county taxes upon the valua- tions as raised by the territorial board of equalization. Be this as it may, the sole question before us is whether the territorial board exceeded it's jurisdic- tion, and not whether some other board or officer is unlawfully extending the lawful order of the board. It does not appear even inferentially that the ter ritOral board has undertaken to make a change in valuations for any other purpose than, in the language of the statute, ''as regards the territorial tax" nor does 1t appear that this board has sought to direct the carrying into effect of the changes made by it for any other purpose.
 By reason of the scope covered in argument, and the close relation exist ing between this case and the manda- mus suit of the Territory of Arizona vs. The Board of Supervisors of Va Vapal County, presented m oral arSu- ment with this case, it is appropriate to point out that we are limited to de- termining the legal effect of the facts as presented in the amended appliea- tion. We have to determine only the question whether the territorial board of equalization has Jurisdiction, in the lawful exercise of it's powers for the purpose of equalizing valuations in the several counties, to raise or diminish valuations of property by classes, and whether as an incident to such equali- zation it may increase the aggregate of the valuations of property in the territory. The record does not present the question raised in the mandamus suit, whether the method employed by the board in the exercise of such power was legal.
 The question as to the Jurisdiction of the board~we answer in the affirmative. The demurrer to the amended applica- tion for the writ of certiorari is sus- tained. and the writ heretofore issued is quashed.
 (Signed)
 FREDERICK s. NAVE, A. J.
 We concur:
 EDWARD KENT, c. J.
 RICHARD E. SLOAN, A. J.