MAXWELL LAND GRANT CO. V. JONES, 1923-NMSC-008, 28 N.M. 427, 213 P. 1034 (S. Ct. 1923)
MAXWELL LAND GRANT CO. et al
vs.
JONES, County Treasurer
No. 2381
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
1923-NMSC-008, 28 N.M. 427, 213 P. 1034
1923, [NO DATE IN ORIGINAL]
Appeal from District Court, Colfax County; Lieb, Judge.
Suit by the Maxwell Land Grant Company and others against Henry C. Jones, as the Treasurer of Colfax County. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction restraining defendant from further attempting to collect additional taxes, plaintiffs appeal.
SYLLABUS
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
COUNSEL
Crampton, Phillips & Darden, of Raton, for appellants.
H. S. Bowman, Atty. Gen., and A. M. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
JUDGES
Bratton, J. Parker, C. J., and Botts, J., concur.
OPINION
{*427} OPINION OF THE COURT
{1} This suit was instituted by the appellants, Maxwell Land Grant Company and several others, to enjoin the appellee, who is the duly elected, qualified, and acting treasurer of Colfax {*428} county, from the collection of certain disputed taxes contended by him to be due and owing upon the respective properties owned by the appellants and situated in that county. It is charged in the joint complaint of the appellants that they properly and seasonably listed and rendered their respective properties to the tax assessor of said county for the year 1915; that all the necessary steps with regard to taxation were taken by the officials of that county, and that the properties so listed and rendered were approved as to value by such local officials; that thereafter, and during the month of September, 1915, and, without any notice to appellants, the state tax commission ascertained the total value of all properties within said Colfax county, as shown by the assessment rolls, to be $ 1,820,024.21 less than the actual cash value thereof, and thereupon said commissioners, by order duly entered, directed that such properties be increased upon the tax rolls of said county 11.75 per cent. Thereafter this order was amended by a subsequent order of the tax commission wherein the properties of said county were raised by classes, with different percentages of increase applied to the different classes. Agricultural and grazing lands were raised 20 per cent.; nonproductive mines and mineral lands, 10 per cent.; goats 33 1-3 per cent.; household goods, 25 per cent.; automobiles, 5 per cent., and merchandise 30 per cent. By a further provision contained in said order, certain business concerns were ommitted from the effect thereof.
{2} Appellants paid all of the taxes due upon their respective properties according to their renditions and the values placed thereon by the local officials of Colfax county, but resisted the collection of the additional tax due by reason of the attempted raise of the state tax commission. A temporary writ of injunction restraining the treasurer of said county from further attempting to collect such additional taxes was granted, but after a hearing, which included {*429} much evidence with respect to the value of the properties involved, as well as properties of like classes in that county, such writ of injunction was dissolved, from which appellants have jointly appealed. Many questions are presented, but we think a decision of one is decisive of the entire case.
{3} It is contended by appellants that the State Tax Commission exceeded its authority and acted without authority of law in making the raises or increases in values by classes, applying thereto different percentages of increase. The statute under which the commission assumed to exercise such authority is section 6, c. 54, Laws 1915, which is in the following language:
"It shall be the duty of the state tax commission to inquire into and ascertain each year the actual total value of the property subject to taxation in each county of this state as nearly as practicable, at its July meeting in each year or any adjournment thereof, the commission shall examine the assessment rolls of the several counties of the state and if the actual value of taxable property in any county as so determined by the commission is more or less than the valuation thereof as shown upon such assessment roll the commission shall, by order duly made and entered on its records increase or decrease, as the case may be, the total valuation of all the property in said county subject to taxation, as shown by such assessment rolls, except the property the valuation of which shall have been fixed by previous orders of the state tax commission, and except property which the commission shall find to be assessed at its actual value, by such percentage as will bring the total valuation of such property to the actual value thereof as acertained by said state tax commission; thereupon, it shall be the duty of such state tax commission to certify said order to the assessor of such county. It shall be the duty of said county assessor, upon receipt of such order forthwith to cause such raise or reduction to be extended upon the assessment roll of such county, by adding or deducting the same percentage upon the total assessed valuation of the property of each taxpayer in such county in accordance with the order of the state tax commission. The said commission shall have authority to amend or modify any order made by it upon a proper showing made within thirty days after the date of the entry of such order."
{4} The state tax commission is a creature of statute, and it has only such powers as are conferred {*430} upon or granted to it by the statute under which it assumed to act, and must be able to support its action by statutory authorization. If it had the authority which it assumed to exercise in the instant case, it must derived from the statute in question. Orr v. State Bd. of Equalization 3 Idaho (Hasb.) 190, 28 Pac. 416; Bell et al. v. Meeker et al., 39 Ind. App. 224, 78 N. E. 614; Felser et al. v. Bosson et al., 189 Ind. 484, 128 N. E. 145; 37 Cyc. 1076.
"It is proper to consider the origin and history of the law, the prior conditions of the law, and the general policy and course of legislation. 'There are few guides to construction more useful than that which directs attention to the prior condition of the law, to aid in determining the full legislative meaning of any statutory change thereof.'"
"The state board of equalization shall at its said meeting on the first Monday in July, examine the assessment roll of each county of the state for the purpose of ascertaining the {*431} rate of assessment and valuation of property therein, and the board shall have the power to adjust and equalize the said assessment rolls so that the valuation of property for purposes of taxation shall be of substantial uniformity throughout the state. Such board at this meeting shall also have power to hear and determine any appeals taken as hereinbefore provided, and any other appeals from the action of any county board, which may be taken by the state, or by any county, or by not less than ten taxpayers of any county, acting through a district attorney; and in case of any such appeal the appellant must file with the secretary of said board a complete transcript of the appealed case in time for consideration by said board at said meeting in July."
"The powers of the board are defined by the Constitution in general terms. The duties of the board are enumerated with somewhat greater particularity by the statutes. Chapters 48 and 49, above. To the extent that the statute (chapter 49) designates a method of procedure, to that extent it constitues the rule and guide for the board's action, a failure to conform substantially to its provisions vitiates the assessment, just as a fraud or the adoption of a fundamentally wrong principal would vitiate it. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146, 3 Pac. 134; Louisvill & N. {*432} R. Co. v. Bosworth (D. C.) 230 Fed. 191; C. B. & Q. R. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585, 27 Sup. Ct. 326,
"On this assumption it is obvious that injustice may be suffered if some property in the county already has been valued at its full worth. But if certain property has been valued at a rate different from that generally prevailing in the county, the owner has had his opportunity to protest and appeal as usual in our system of taxation. ( Hager v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 710, 28 L. Ed. 569, 572, 573, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663), so that it must be assumed that the property owners in the county all stand alike."