Bisbee daily review., 1910-04-06

Hoist and improvements
 thereon ......-. AV'soN'N Copper Queen m-ne So,Oe0.So Conner Jack - 50000.0e Baxter mine ... ......-. 2oe,oeV-vv Atlanta mine . 250.oo009 Dividend mine. .. ..- S3o.Ooo-ov Rucker mine - 200, 900 co
 Making a total of SS.l6o.O0o.Oo
 In addition the personal property. machinery, merchandise. etc, was in creased in tue sum of $35S.S95.oo, making a total raise of Ss.464.Ss5.0O.
 Thereafter the rate of taxatcl for county and territorial purposes was duly fixed and levied upon all of the taxable property in Cochise county at S3.2O upon each S100 of valuation The tax so levied upon the property of the appellee as raised amounted to the sum of s122.657.09.
 Upon this increase being made, the appellee fled an injunction suit ia the district court of Cochise county. prior to September. 1901. to enjoin the collection of the tax upon the ground that said increase had been frauduIentiy made. and tlnt it was an over-vanation cf its property. 1t therein rendered the full sum of Sis.- 132.1e. being the amount of the tax upon all of its property. real and per sonai. upon the assessment for said year prior 10 the increase made by the board Of equalization. The district court granted an injunction asasnst the collection Of that portion of the tax here in controversy upon the pay ment Of the sum rendered by the plaintiff Of Sf4.132.12. and also the ad- didOnal sum cf s9.5S9.29. subsequently paid. wlgch was the amount of the tax upon the increase made upon cer- tain personal property herein. which increase the court found to be valid. The court in said suit found ns one of it's findings of fact that the increase of the board of equalization upon the mining claims was not based upon any information or evidence had or obtained by them. but was made arb.- trarily and capriciousiy and for the purpose Of imposing upon the plain tiff an unjust share of the burden Of taxation. The sum of SI4.13312 so paid by the plaintiff to the county for the tax levied upon the original as- sessment. which the appellee had ad- mitted was due and rendered in its in- junction suit. was accepted by the county treasurer and ex-ofiicio tax collector "on account of any moneys which might ultimately be determined as due from said company for its tax for said year" An appeal was taken by the county from this decree to this court The opinion reyersing the decree of the district court was re- ported under the name of County Of Cochise vs. Copper Queen COnson- dated Mining company, Ariz., 221; i; topinion on rehearing. 8 Ariz.. 459) This court there held that the only remedy against excessive taxation at that time. as the cause of action ac- crued before the revised statutes Of 1901 became operative. was that af- fOrded under the jurisdiction of a court of equity. but reversed the de- cree and remanded the case for new trial On the ground that the complaint Tas defective in not expressly aver ring that tifc property was assessed in excess of its full cash value
 Subsequent to the rendition of this decision an effort was made to com. promise the claim Of the county and an agreement Of compromise was made under resolution of the board Of supervisors. adopted July :. 1904, whereby Ire Copper Queen company agreed to pay and did pay the further sum of S5,66ifa in fu-l settlement of the taxes for the year 1901. Thereon the injunction suit was dismissed by the appellee, This S5,61144 so paid has been retained by the county.
 Subsequently a proceeding in man damus was instituted (Territory ex. Tel. Clark, Attorney General. vs. Gaines. Tax Collector g Pac., 2SD, to compel the tax collector to com mence suit against the Copper Queen company for the collection Of the bal ance of the tax remaining unpaid, upon the ground that the compromise so made was unautlcrized and void. This court held that the bard of supervis CTS had no authority to compromise said taxes and granted the writ This action was instituted pursuant 10 the mandate.
 There is testimony offered tending to shcw that the raise made by the county board of equalization was not bEsed upon any evidence of the value Of the c'aims so raised and was, in fact arbitrary. The appellee also of fered evidence. which WIS uncontra- dicted that certain Of the mines which were thus raised were assessed far in excess cf their full cash value. has much as it has not been necessary to consider fire question of the admissa- biIity of this evidence under the de- fense interDosed by the appellee. it is not necessary to further stzfe the evidence bearing thereon.
 ". c. Gilmore. Tax Attorney tPick- ett. Bowman < Pickett and F. s. Clark. Special CounseD. for Appellant. F. E. EIinwood and Judson & Green. for Appellee.
 LEWIS. J. tafter stating the factsD The description of the sixty five pat ented mining claims Of the appellee.