Case Name: SMITH SECURITIES CO. v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-10-12
Citations: 98 Or. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH SECURITIES CO. v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Bean and Burnett, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 418–431

Head Matter:
Argued September 30,
appeal dismissed October 12, 1920,
rehearing denied January 4, 1921.
SMITH SECURITIES CO. v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY.
(192 Pac. 654; 194 Pac. 428.)
Appeal and Error — Appeal Purely Statutory.
1. An appeal Is statutory, and does not exist as a. matter of right.
Taxation — No Appeal from Decree Setting Aside Assessment, Proceeding Being Summary.
2. No appeal lies from a deeree of the Circuit Court setting aside an assessment in- a proceeding brought under Section á613, L. O. I/., such statute providing a special .proceeding, summary and complete within itself.
ON PETITION POE REHEARING.
Taxation — Neither the Comity Assessor nor the Comity Board of Equalization Act as a Court.
3. A county assessor is not a court, and in lowering or raising valuations on property a county hoard of equalization is not acting or sitting as a court.
Taxation — No Appeal from Decree of Circuit Court Setting Aside Assessment on Appeal from County Board of Equalization.
4. Where, on appeal to the Circuit Court, pursuant to Section 4299, Or. L., from the county hoard of equalization, which denied petition to have an assessment reviewed and corrected, the Circuit Court set aside the original assessment and reduced the valuation, no appeal on behalf of the county lies-,from such decree of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court under Sections 548 and 549.
From Multnomah: George W. Stapleton, Judge.
Department 2.
In 1911 and 1912 the R. R. Thompson Estate Company, one of the plaintiffs herein, constructed the Multnomah Hotel on block 44 in the City of Portland, at a cost of something more than a million dollars. On March 1,1916, on a basis of 75 per cent of its cash value, the land was assessed at $360,000 and the building at $335,000, making a total of $695,000.
On August 25, 1916, the property was sold to the plaintiff Smith Securities Company for $575.000, under an agreement that the taxes should be prorated between the grantor and- the grantee for the current year.
The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved at the assessment, petitioned the board of equalization of Multnomah County to have it reviewed and corrected, and asked that the land for that year be assessed at $207,000 and the building at $150,000 or a total' of $357,000. A hearing was had before the board of equalization, and the petition was denied. The plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the board to the Circuit Court off Multnomah County, where a trial was had and testimony was taken. The court found that the assessment was made at a greater sum than the true cash value of the property on the first Monday in March, 1916; that on that date its actual cash value was $575,000; and that the assessment should he reduced. A decree was rendered setting aside the original assessment and ordering that the property be assessed at $575,000. The defendant appeals, assigning error in the findings and rulings of the Circuit Court.
Appeal Dismissed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. Walter H. Evans, District Attorney, and Mr. Samuel H. Pierce, Deputy District Attorney, with an oral argument by Mr. Pierce.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. A. P. Dobson and Mr. Robert Krims, with an oral argument by Mr. Dobson.

Opinion:
JOHNS, J.
The appeal from the decision of the board of equalization to the Circuit Court and the proceedings in that court were founded upon Section 3613, L. O. L., which provides as follows:
"Any person who shall have petitioned for the reduction of a particular assessment, or whose assessment has been increased by the board of equalization, who shall be aggrieved by the action of such board, may appeal therefrom to the Circuit Court of the county. The appeal shall be taken and perfected in the following manner, and not otherwise:
"1. The party desiring the appeal from the action of such board of equalization may cause a notice, to be signed by himself or attorney, to be filed with the county clerk of the county within five days, excluding Sunday, from the time the assessment-roll is returned to the county clerk by the board of equalization.
"2. Within five days of the giving of snch notice the appellant shall file with the clerk of the Circuit Court a transcript of the petition for reduction of assessment, or so much of the record of the board of equalization as may be necessary, intelligently to present the questions to be decided by the Circuit Court, together with a copy of the order or action taken by the board of equalization, the notice of appeal and record of the filing thereof; thereafter the Circuit Court shall have jurisdiction of the matter, but not otherwise,
"The appeal shall be heard and determined by the Circuit Court in a summary manner, and shall be determined as an equitable cause. Either the appellant or the county as appellee shall be entitled to the compulsory attendance of witnesses and to the production of books and papers. If, upon hearing, the court finds the amount at which the property was finally assessed by the board of equalization is its actual full cash value, and the assessment was made fairly and in good faith, it shall approve such assessment ; but if it finds that the assessment was made at a greater or less sum than the market value of the property, or if the same was not fairly or in good faith made, it shall set aside such assessment and determine such value, and a certified copy of the order or judgment of the Circuit Court shall be sufficient warrant for the levying and collecting of taxes against such property, and upon such valuation so determined., No proceedings for the levying or collection of taxes against any property shall be stayed by the reason of the taking or pendency of the appeal from the board of equalization; but in event the assessment is decreased by the court on appeal the tax collector shall refund to the person paying taxes on such property any excessive amount of taxes collected, and in event the assessment is increased by the court on appeal the property shall be liable for the deficiency on the amount of such increased valuation. The provisions of law governing costs and disbursements on appeal shall be applicable hereto."
It is required that the appeal be taken and notice filed with the county clerk within five days, excluding Sunday, after the assessment-roll is filed with the county clerk by the board of equalization, and that within five days after giving the notice the appellant shall file with the clerk of the Circuit Court a transcript of the record.
This statute provides a special proceeding and is summary and complete within itself. Although it does provide for an appeal to the Circuit Court by an aggrieved property owner, it does not give either party the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. This court has many times held that an appeal is statutory, and does not exist as a matter of right. It is true that the case here was tried upon its merits, and that; no motion was filed to dismiss. But the question of jurisdiction is involved. On principle, Portland v. Nottingham, 58 Or. 1 (113 Pac. 28), is conclusive that in this kind of a case the county does not have the right of appeal. For want of jurisdiction, and appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.
McBride, C. J., and Bean and Burnett, JJ., concur.
Denied January 4, 1921.