Case Name: The State ex rel. Johnson v. The Annual State Board of Equalization of Railroads et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1902-02-04
Citations: 65 Ohio St. 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Johnson v. The Annual State Board of Equalization of Railroads et al.
Judges: Min shall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 65
Pages: 544–546

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Johnson v. The Annual State Board of Equalization of Railroads et al.
Board constituted by sections 2811 and 2812, Rev. Stat. — Is board of equalization and not of appraisal.
The board constituted by sections 2811 and 2812, Revised Statutes, is a board of equalization; it is not a board of appraisal.
(Decided February 4, 1902.)
Mandamus.
The relator, a taxpayer, by his petition sets forth that the annual state board of equalization of railroads has, upon application and complaint of relator, refused to raise the aggregate value of railroads above that fixed by the boards of county auditors, which aggregate amount so returned is greatly below the actual value of the property within the state of such companies, and asks that a writ of mandamus issue commanding tlie board and the members thereof to convene forthwith at the office of the auditor of state at the state capital, and then appraise and equalize the properties of the railroad companies, which were theretofore appraised by the boards of county auditors, the reports of which were filed with the auditor of state, and that in making such appraisal and equalization they determine and fix the said values duly equalized at the true value in money of said properties, limited, however, in performing said duties as by law provided, that the aggregate values so equalized shall not be less than the amount returned by the boards of county auditors, and that in performing their duties they be not limited by the valuation of the property of such companies if found hy the board undervalued so that the aggregate value of the property of the railroad companies within the state as returned by the boards of auditors is below the true value of the said property.
To tin's petition a demurrer has been filed by the attorney general, averring that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the cause was argued and submitted on that demurrer.
W. A.. Babcock; M. W. Beacom and Newton I). Baker, for plaintiff, cited the following authorities:
Karb v. State, 54 Ohio St., 383; State v. Halliday, 61 Ohio St., 352; United States v. Hodson, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.), 395; Cornwall v. Todd, 38 Conn., 433; Cooley’s Const. Lim., 184; Hankin v. People, 106 Ill., 628; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 ed.), 4; 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.), 210; Dwarris Cons, of Statutes, 179; 1 Kent, 464; State v. Raine, 47 Ohio St., 447; Gaylord v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St., 25; People v. Lothrop, 3 Col., 428; People v. Ames, 60 Pac. Rep., 346; State v. Equalization Board, 18 Mont., 473; State v. Fortune, 24 Mont, 154; Kittle v. Shervin, 11 Neb., 65; State v. Edwards, 31 Neb., 369; Whitbeck v. Bank, 127 U. S., 193; Bank v. Chapman, 173 U. S., 205.
J. ill. Sheets,, Attorney General; J. E. Todd and SW. Bennett, for defendants, cited the following authorities:
Hankin v. People, 106 Ill., 628; Black Interp. of Laws, 212; Coal Company v. Rosser, 53 Ohio St., 12.

Opinion:
.By the Court:
The issue of law raised is whether or not the annual board of equalization of railroads has power to act as a board of appraisers, and, if satisfied that it ought to be done, proceed to increase the aggregate value of the railroads of the state for the purposes of taxation in excess of that fixed and returned by the boards of county auditors.
We answer the question in the negative. The power delegated to this board is given by sections 2811 and 2812 of the Revised Statutes, by the provisions of which it is made the duty of the board to equalize the values of the property of railroad companies as the same are fixed by the county auditors by adding to the valuation of the property of such companies as have been undervalued, and deducting from the valuation of the property of such as have been overvalued, not, however, reducing the aggregate; and when the board has complied with these requirements, its duties are fully performed.
Demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.
Min shall, C. J., Williams, Burket, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.