Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-10-26

of taxpayers to have their property
assessed at any particular sum under
the circumstances Of this case, is
vested right that cannot be maintained.
This right TO object to increased val
uation by equalization is more visionary
than real.
The assessed valuation does not deter
mine the amount of taxes the taxpayer
must pay on his property under the cir
cumstapces with which we are dealing.
In theory at least the board might
have reduced the valuation of all prop
erty within its jurisdiction proportion
ately to that of the plaintiffs as fixed
before the equalization order and then
raise the tax rate on all property, In
which event the plaintiffs would have
paid the same amount in taxes that
would be required of them to pay upon
the increased assessment of all property
with lower rate.
So that If the assessed valuation be
considered adjudicated in this case, it
/ fixes no definite amount in taxes that
the plaintiffs must respond to, nor that
the taxing officers may not go beyond.
II such a course as above indicated had
been taken, / venture to say there would
have been no contention that the amount
of taxes upon this property of plaintiffs
had been adjudicated at a different
amount.
OF OPINION CHARGE
is NOT CONTROLLING.
We are of the opinion that the con-
tention of plaintiffs, that the assessed
valuation Of their property has been ad-
Indicated so as to result into a vested
right that precludes the taxing officials
from assessing IL above fixed value, is
not controlling in this case.
It does not appear that some classes
Of property at least are assessed above
their cash value
To this extent, the assessment recently
a Is n in he
old assessment.
1t is to be regretted that the taxing
officials could not have devised means
to have avoided this injustice.
But this amounts to an irregularity
and not to action that is void
Courts are seldom justified IN granting
relief prayed for herein upon irregular RI
ties although they may appear unwise.
Much latitude and discretion is given
to taxing officers in fixing assessed val
Much difficulty is encountered in ad-
jUstinc all the complications that arise
in our taxing system.
Perfect equality cannot be obtained
The records show one thing that miti-
gates the injury that the plaintiffs coma
plain Of 90 some extent, and that is that
the assessed valuation of all the property
in the county was increased by the eQua-
lization board in practically the same
ratio.
IL such increase was accurately pro-
portioued IL would result In lower rate
and perhaps not materially affect the
ultimate tax that plaintiffs will pay I'M
der the increased assessment.
[ am not disposed to bold that this
act Is invalid on the ground OF II being
special legislation.
Anv retrospective statute OF remedial
natuTe. curing a defective execution OF
some power really possessed by person,
tribunal or officer. attempting 10 exer-
else IL, is in it's nature. more or less,
special legislation, but not in sach de-
gree as TO offend the inhibition Of spe-
ciaI legislation under the Constitution.
1t would be difficult to- imagine any
curative act or any retrospective statute
Of a remedial nature that would not, in
some degree. appear to be special, but
such legislation has been held valid time
and time again.
SUPREME COURT ACTION
INCREASES DIFFICULTY.
The question of adjudication arising
from the action of the State Supreme
Court in holding that the first horizontal
increases were void. is held by Judge Hay
to be the most serious and difficult
question arising in this case"
The court held that It should be the
duty Of taxing officials to avoid all in
CAPABILITIES possible, and to this end they
are given discretion in a greater or less
courts nor interfered with except IN cases
where it would amount to fraud.
The court held that the assessment in
excess of the cash value in this case came
about by reason OF the exercise OF the
power Of the board TO equalize taxation,
and not by original assessment, under
which circumstances l think the law jus
titles an assessed valuation above the cash
value.
'Tt is clear from the language that
the Supreme Court did not take into con-
sideration the question of the assessed
valuation of the property in arriving at
its decision" the court said.
at evidently considered the case of
Aug %, 1919, was void for want OF
authority in the state board to make It.
Neither from this, nor from the Ian
guage of the order, judgment and de-
cree of the court is anything shown that
J indicates that judgment that the as
{ sessed valuation of the property could
not be fixed at the particular amount
designated inEthe order of Aug. %.
1919.
The extent Of the ruling was that 1t
was not fixed at the amount designated
in the said order because the order was
void, and because 1t was not so fixed
ZIG dNuALDA duh treasurer were tnJoAuSu
from enforcing the assessment.
Certainly It was not adjudicated that
any particular rate should follow this
particular assessment and therefore no
fixed amount plaintiffs should pay In
taxes upon their property"
DEVOTES HUGH SPACE
TO THIS PHASE OF CASE.
Judge Hey devoted much space in his
decision regarding the plea Of the plain
tiffs that the Tuthill- Kiper act IS invalid
because it attempts to validate an assess
ment heretofore declared by the State
Supreme Court to be invalid
Judge Hay held that the Tuthill- Kiper
act does not contemplate such action and