Arizona republican., 1910-04-03

" therefor The name must be insert ed in the location notice, is inserted in the patent. and the notice and patent made a matter of public rec UId The practice of assessing pat ented mines by name has obtained too lorg ia this territory to be now questioned. This mode of assessment is practical construction of the statute Of which We may take ju- dicial notice and is of weight in the determination of the validity of an assessment so made.
 Copper Queen Mining Go. vs. Territory. 9 Ariz., 3S@.
 The appellee was entitled to a sep ara;e assessment of it's property in tracts or parcels unless it waived that right by the list it returned to the as St ssor. The appellant contends that the appellee is estopped by the re- turn of the property described as single tract or parcel of land from asserting i'll, Sality in the assessment here made en maSse.
 There is force in appellee's argu- ment that there is no technical estop- pei in pals pleaded or proven. Cen L. nnial, etc, Co. Vs. Jaub County, Utah. = PIc.. 1924. Yet the express sion is frequently used in tax cases. Inland Lumber Co. vs. Thompson .IdahoD, S3 Pac., 936. and ceses there in cited The Idaho court reaches the conclusion that in tax cases there should be d liberal application of the principle of estoppel in favor of up- holding and enforcing an assessment against the taxpayer. Waiver is a definite expression applicable to the action of apellee in making it's list for taxing purposes. Returning it's property en masse was a voluntary reliquishment of the known right of separate assessment. The taxpayer should not now be heard to complain. kissimee City vs. Drought. 26 Fla. l. So. 525. Nor does the fact that the list returned was not verified by the oath Of the superintendent of the mining lessen its effect as such waiv- CT It is. nevertheless. d voluntary statement by the appellee of the manner in which it's property might be properly assessed. State eX rel. smith vs. Cooper. Town Clerk, g Wis. 666 IS N. W. 43s.
 The most important question raised upon the record is as tn the validity of the action of the board of super. visors sitting as the board of equal iZation in raising the assessment upon eight of the group of siXty-five claims originally assessed en masse in amounts varying from s5O.000.00 to $l.000. .0nO00 each
 The action of the board of equal ization in making this raise is dis closed by the minutes following: e
 In the matter coming on this
 day regularly L. be heard beefore
 the board of equalization pursu-
 ant to a notice heretofore served
 upon said company in writing,
 and which notice appears in the
 minutes of said board. and in
 which said notice it was proposed
 to change and correct the valua-
 ton of said company's property
 as the same appears upon said
 assessment roll. by adding there
 to the sum of s3.464. S95.00; for
 the reason that the sum fixed in
 said assessment roll appears to
 be too small: and this being the
 day and hour fixed in said mo-
 tice for the hearings. and pur-
 
 ter Douglas. superintendent and
 agent of said company. appeared
 before the board in behalf of
 said company and made state
 ments regarding said valuations
 and his arguments in reference
 thereto. and the board being now
 fully advised in the premises
 finds it necessary to add to the
 assessed valuation of the prop
 erty of said company on the as
 sessment roll as follows. to-wit:
 Silver Spray mine. .sl. 900, ,0000O
 Hoisting works and
 improvements on
 said mine ........ 50,0O0.O0
 Holbrook mine ...... 1000, 100000
 Hoist and improve
 ments thereon .... 100000
 Copper Queen mine 50O00OO