Weekly journal-miner., 1912-09-11
STATE LOSES TAX CASE AGAINST SUPERVISORS

tNtt tHV hukust otuSr oI tOc County Board of Equalization were set aside through ccrtiorari pro- .cecdings it would still bc necessary to resort to mandamus proceed ings to compel the Board of Supervisors 10 carry into effect the July order of the County Board of
 Equalization. Now. this assumes that the Board of Supervisors would not execute duty imposed upon them by law. an assumption the Court cannot entertain; in fact. the Court must presume the contrary.
 The history of the writ of man. damps shows it to be harsh
 and summary proceeding. The authorities are unanimous that 1t may be invoked only as last re-
 sort when no plain. speedy pr adc- quatc remedy at law is available.
 In my opinion. ccrtiorari is not
 only a plain. speedy and adequate rcmcdy, but the only method by
 which the August order of the
 County Board of Equalization could
 be reviewed. It is admitted that
 the County Board of Equalization
 was regularly organized and in reg
 ular session when the order was en- tered. IL is a Constitutional body.
 clothed with the functions and
 powers of court. and its judg-
 mcnts. until set aside. are con
 elusive. This Is not a proceeding
 to set aside the Angus, order, but an attempt to attack it col
 lateraliy and compel the Board of
 Supervisors to ignore it.. In my judgrpent it cannot prevail
 . Although this is my view con cerning the pleadings. yet in view . of the nature of the question and able argument presented. l believe
 it my duty to pass upon the con trovcrsy on it's merits.
 The State Board of Equalization { and the County Board of Equaliza , ton are provided for by the Con , s,itution and their powers arc de c fined. The laws of Arizona pro C vide that the County Board O :. Equalization shall meet at certain '. specified times It is admitted b, l. both sides that at the August meeting C the Board of Equalization of th' n county has the same powers il C every respect whien it had at it 1T July meeting; in fact, this IS spec 4 iheally SO declared by the statute c lt is contcndcd by the Attorne al General. however. that the Coant D Board of Equalization, in passin ,r upon specific assessments and val
 nations, acts as judicial bod, ,f and that when 1t has made eel at tain order in any particular cas- st it's jurisdiction is exhausted an ,e that ii is without power to recor in sider. rescind or modify any pal a of the order when once made. ie cannot support this contention. s. is my view tha, the County Boar \s of Equalization of this county, whe ,l- regularly constituted and sitting ; nt provided by law. should have ar of has under the laws of Arizona, pow re CT to reconsider. rescind or mod r. fy its decision in any particular cas ]. To hold otherwise would depri' al the Board very largely of q I'd powers which 1t has expressly pr
 vided 1t shall have under the Al Ie- zona Constitution and Statutes al ed read into the law constructi' .r- contrary to it's plain meaning. is- It must be borne in mind th ,xt the question before this Court [
 fers solely to the power of | is County Board of Equalizatio ,r, Much has been said tending
 bring other issues into the cal = but in the last analysis IL resols Ter itself solely into this proposi,ic ed This Court is not deciding whe' rly CT the action of the Board in ma ter ing change in particular asse by ments was right or wrong. and ing not passing upon any question es y's cerning the authority of the St' ev- Board of Equalization. The DO sel CT of the State Board of Equals ind ton to equalizc the rate of asse ri, ment and the valuation of prope mn iu the counties, as provided
 his law, Is not questioned and has b' .er- repeatedly upheld by our Supre ial- Court No question concern red the power of the State Board ust. Equalization or its orders or
 is cisions. is before this court ,ws this action.
 da- It IS safe to say that were it ard for the unfortunate conflict m