The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-05-12

Court Rules, However, That
Upon Certain Specified Pay.
ments by Petitioner, Less
Credit of Amount Already
Paid, Balance Of Original
Tax Shall Be Abated
Setting aside the action of the
Burleigh county commissioners in
accepting the compromise applied
for by E. G. Patterson in the So
called Patterson Tax Case" and
ordering that the taxes originally
assessed against the property be
restored, with the credit thereon Of
the amount already paid by Mr..
Patterson, Judge G. Crimson of
Rugby today filed with Clerk of
Court C. A. Fisher his decision in
the case which was heard before
him last September.
The Judge orders, however, that
upon the payment by Mr.. Patter-
son of $7,587.20 with interest at
six per cent from the date of tax
sale in 1920 to the date Of payment
and the sum Of $9,O91.49 with inter-
est at six per cent from the date
of the tax sale in 1921 to date of
payment, and the sum Of $685. 40
with interest from date of tax sale
in 1922 to date of payment, and
the sum of $10,474.74 with interest
from date of tax sale in 1923 to date
Of payment, and the sum Of So, $751;
II with interest from date of tax
sale in 1924 to date of payment,
less the sum of $35, 456.35 with in
terest from October, 1925, and the
sum Of $1,119.88 paid on the 1919
taxes with interest from date OF
payment, the balance of the taxes
SO restored shall be abated."
Provides Different Compromise
In other words, Judge Crimson
states, upon payment by Mr.. Pat
terson Of the amounts which the
Judge finds to be reasonable and
the lowest that could be accepted by
the county board without abuse of
its discretionary powers, with in
terest at six per cent, and credit
ing thereon the amount Mr.. Patter-
son has paid, then the balance of
his taxes will be abated and re-
leased, and Mr.. Patterson will be
allowed to redeem his property for
that amount. If he fails to do so
the title to the property will 60 to
the county as provided by law.
Judge Grimson's decision spe-
officially finds that the taxes as
sessed against Mr.. Patterson's prop
erty are too high, and were unjust
and inequitable, and the decision
makes a substantial reduction in the
amount of the taxes assessed
against him." said j. M. Hanley of
the law firm of Sullivan, Hanley &
Sullivan, Mandan, counsel for Mr..
Patterson, this morning in COM
menting on the decision.
1--WE have had no conference with
our client as yet on the decision
and we have not yet determined
what further steps, if any, will be
taken in the litigation" Judge Han
ley said.
Asked for his comment on Judge
Grimson's decision, Mr.. Patterson
said: II have no statement to make
regarding the decision just handed
down by Judge Crimson in the tax
case until consult with my attorn-
neys, except that I am positive the
decision will be appealed to the
supreme court"
Acceptance of the compromise by
the county board was an abuse of
discretion, the Judge rules, stating
that "the board, however, would
have been justified in accepting q
compromise on the basis Of q valua-
ton of $222,94O figured on basis
of a 100 per cent Of that valuation
for 1919 to 1922, inclusive, and Is
per cent thereof for the year 1923,
and in figuring interest at six per
cent from date of sale Of tax to the
county and no penalty"
Judge Crimson places what he
believes q reasonable valuation of
the property at $222,4O upon the
fact that in March, 1922, Mr.. Pat
terson filed with the county board
an application for relief in which
he states that the true valuation of
the properties and the valuation at
which he was willing to pay the
tax was $222, $40. "When he was
once willing to pay tax on that
valuation the county commissioners
should not have compromised at
lower figure upon the evidence be-
fore them and before this court,
the judges decision states.
Assessment Was Inequitable
"The evidence shows there was
some unjust and inequitable assess
ment on petitioners property, that
there was some depreciation in his
property, which, however, was larg-
ely overcome by appreciation in
values generally. go From the
evidence presented this court is in
clined to believe that the commits
sioners would have been justi-
fled in coming down to that valua-
ton. It was, however, abuse of dis
erection for them to 60 below that
valuation"
The case involves payment of
taxes on property in Bismarck
owned by Mr.. Patterson, including |
the Patterson hotel, 500 hotel, Pat
terson hall, and other buildings, for !
the years, 1919 to 1923, inclusive. |
The full amount of taxes as origi- |
nally assessed against the property |
during those years was SIS, 456.35,
which does not include special as
sessments. In addition there was
due on September IA, 1926, penalty |
and interest amounting to approx
mately $24,488.15.
On that date Mr.. Patterson Of
fered to pay as q compromise the
sum Of $36,327.15, which COM
promise the county board accepted |
subject to the approval Of the state |
tax commissioner. The boards ac-
ceptance provided further that if |
the tax commissioner raised the
amount ct which the compromise
would be by him approved then the |
resolution to be applicable to such
amount as might receive the an.