Arizona republican., 1910-04-03
CHere follows the schedule1


 back tax book and the back tax bill substantially conform to the dupli- cate assessment roll. except as to cer- tain entries of payments, penalties and interest.
 It is apparent from an examination of this roll that there are in effect two assessments for the same year against each of the eight claims raised. One. an assessment com mingled with that of siXty-four other claims en bloc: the other separate and distinct. This is no mere ire gularity The legality of the original assessment as an entirety has been sustained solely upon the ground that the property was so returned by the taxpayer. The board disregarded such return and the validity Of it's action must be determined under the sta tute alone. IL might be argued sue cessfully that had the board of su perVisorS raised the assessment upon the group, such raise would have been valid. But the board segregated from the group certain claims and imposed thereon an additional assess ment It is a fundamental rule of taxation in this territory that a tax payer may pay upon any one of par cels separately assessed. discharging the lien theeron. without paying upon the remainder. Par. 2676, Revised Statutes of 1887.
 Judge Cooley says: When two parcels are owned
 by the same person. is the sta ute requires separate assess
 mcnt, obedience to the require
 ment is essential to the ealidlty of the proceedings. It cannot be
 held in any case that it is un important to the taxpayer wheth CT this requirement is complied with or not. Indeed it is made solely for his benefit: it being
 wholly immaterial. so far as the interest of the state is concerned,
 whether separate estates are or
 are not separately assessed. And where q requirement has for its
 sole object the benefit of the tax payer. the necessity for a compli ance with it cannot be made to
 depend upon the circumstances of
 particular case. and the Opin- ion of court or jury regarding the importance of obedience to
 it in that instance That meth cd of construing statutes would
 abolish all certainty" Cooley on
 Taxation, page 73J.
 By the action of which complaint is made here. the board deprived the appellee of this right Upon the raise being made it had the legal right to determine upon which. if
 ..rsl pay. If it determined to pay upon none. it was. nevertheless. obliged to pay a portion of the tax thereon if it exercised it's right to pay upon the fifty-seven claims remaining. for the tax collector, under paragraph 2676. supra (re-enacted. paragraph 3900, Revised Statutes l90D. could not re- ceive the tax upon less than the en- tire Sixty-five claims. that being the least subdivision appearing on the assessment roll If it determined to pay upon one or more of the eight so raised and to abandon the remain der, it would have to pay the tax upon the raise. together with the tax upon the entire sixty five claims as originally assessed.
 The undisputed testimony discloses that these claims were on-contigu- ous in instances which would have invalidated an original assessment. except for the return. The board in raising this assessment disregard ed the original classification. which has been held good as against the appellee solely by reason of its re- turn.
 hn nf Sfrf.n Sit a board of equalization. had no pow CT. under paragraph 2654 of the Re vised Statutes of 1887. to segregate from tract of land returned and assessed as one parcel a portion thereof and impose thereon an addi- tional assessment, without first de- termining that such tract was i'm properly assessed as a whole and causing such tract to be reassesSed and raised in subdivisions in such manner as to preserve the right of the taxpayer to discharge the lien 1f taxes upon such of the several sepa- rate tracts as he might elect.
 The question here determined was neither presented nor considered in the case of County of Cochise vs. Copper Queen Company, 8 Ariz. 211.
 Upon the trial of the case the court received all evidence offered subject to the various objections made there to. To the offers by the plaintiff of the assessment roll, the duplicate as- sessment roll, the delinquent assess ment roll and the back tax book. the defendant objected upon the ground of variance from the allegations of the complaint
 The list of mining claims set forth in paragraph " of the complaint is as follows: "Sixtyfive U5) patented mining claims near Bisbee. Arizona. as follows: Atlanta, Ace of Spades, Amazon, Baxter. Best Piece. Copper Queen, Copper Jack. Copper King. Copper Prince, Copper Bullion. Cum berland. Cave. Dividend Wedge. Ellie Coon, East Side, Frank Cogswell. General. Golden Gate. Goddard. Gard ner. Hendricks. Hayes. Holbrook. Howell. Harrison. Iron Monster, Little New York, Lookout. Mammoth. Nal vina, New York. Neptune. North Star. Ophir, Fucker. Sun Rise. Space, Sur prise. Silver Spray. Silver Bear. Sun ny Side. Sacramento. Tip Top. Tri- angle Uncle Sam. Wade Hampton% Wood Chopper. White Tail Deer. Bis bee. Belle, Isle. Columbia, Copper Monarch. Copper Crown. Copper Globe. Cuprite. Hardscrabble. Key stone. Lucky Jack. Raymond. Stars and Stripes. South View. Tack. Union.