The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1925-12-04
JUDGE C0FFEY
RULES AGAINST
REASSESSMENT
Failure of County Board to
Review Same on NOvem-
Der 2 Is Fatal
WILL APPEAL CASE
Question of Laws COnstitu-
tionality Left to High
Court TO Decide 4.
WILL APPEAL CASE

November 2. 1925, was q fatal day
for the special reassessment of the
city Of Bismarck.
Failure of the Burleigh county
board to meet on that date to review
the reas assessment and hear such
grievances as might have been pre-
sented was failure to comply with
the letter Of the law, Judge J. A. Cof-
fey held last night, following argu-
ments on the merits Of the action
brought to obtain an Injunction
against the reassessment. and conse
qucntly the rcassessment is void
The history Of the Bismarck re
assessment case, has been presented
through these columns several times
and needs no repetition. According
to previous arrangement the matter
was brought before Judge Coffey last
evening for final argument Judge
J. NJ. Hanley of Mandan presented
the case for the defense and Ed. Cox
and Alfred Zuger argued in behalf
of the plaintiffs. Arguments for both
sides were for the most part supple
mentary to lengthy briefs which had
already been presented to the court
and dwelt mainly on two points the
constitutionality Of the law of 1919
under which the state tax commits
Sioner had ordered the special assess
ment, and whether or not the county
commi ssioner; had any authority to
meet on Nov lber l6, as they did, to
review the reasscssmcnt.
- Plaintiffs Contentious
Attorneys for the plaintiffs con-
tended briefly that the 1919 law was
unconstitutional in that it does not
set any definite date and time Of
hearing on IA rcassessment ordered by
the tax commission, specifying only
that the hearing shall be held on the
first Monday of the month following
the filing Of the reassessmcnt, and al
so that the law does not provide for
any cotice to taxpayers affected
thereby.
The plaintiffs main point. how
ever. was that the county commits
sioners did not meet on the first
Monday Of November November .
as provided in the 1919 law and
therefore any later meeting held by
them had no legal effect and the re-
assessment had failed.
Defense attorneys claimed that the
meeting Of the county commissioners
held on November 16 was legal ac-
cording to the provision of a law
passed by the 1926 legislature, which
says that the county board shall meet
upon published notice not more than
80 days after the filing of the reas-
sessment, and that the law of 1919
and the law OF. 1925 referring to re-
assessments should be considered to-
gether in arriving ut a decision in
the matter.
The 1925 Law
Plaintiffs answer to this point was
that the provision Of the law OF 1925
. regarding the time Of meeting of the
county board referred only to rcas-
sessments which may have been or
dered by the county board and not to
reassessmcnts ordered by the state
tax commission. The law Of 1925,
according to plaintiffs attorneys. re-
fers only to rcassessments ordered by
the county board, with the exception
of one paragraph which provides for
the paying of special assessors en-
gagged by the state tax commission
when that body orders a reassess-
mcnt, inasmuch as the law of 1919
did not make such provision. De-
fense counsel contended that the law
of 1926 operates in connection with
the law Of 1919 and that, therefore,
the provision providing for a meet
ing Of the county board within 30
days referred as we'll to a reasscss-
ment called by the tax commits loner
as to one called by the county COM
missioners.
"Since this is purely a question of
law, without dealing with individuals,
it is much easier to make a decision
than would otherwise be the case
said Judge Coffey after the argu-
ments were closed" and a decision
can therefore be made without re-
flecting upon the motives of anyone.
The Laws COnstitutiOnality
Il do not believe it necessary to
pass upon the constitutionality Of the
law. 1t is doubtless within the pur-
view of this case and is really in
volved, but it has been indicated by
the legislature of this state that
questions of the consttutionality of
law are of such Importance that they
should not be passed on readily by
any member Of the court"
Citing case some time ago at
Jamestown, where assessments were
made which were apparently much too
high and would have been almost
confiscatory had they been put into
effect, the judge said: assume that
this is not true in this case--at least
no evidence to that effect has been
presented, although it doubtless
would, had such been true.
1T is my opinion that this reas-
sessnent falls because of,the failure
Of the county commissioners to meet
OH November to review the reas-
sessment and hear such grievances
and complaints as might have been
presented. have come to the con-
clusion that the tax commissioner
, law, under which the pent
was ordered, is followed in all re-
spects except the matter of giving
notice. 1t seems that the law stands
complete and is a system by itself
to be followed, including notice to
the tax payer set out in the statute,
requiring hearing on the first Mon.
day of the month following filing of
the report. It would seem that if
the taxpayer is put in the position Of
being required to get notice by one
Of two different methods, he would
be lost in preserving his property
rights.
Continued on page 81