192 P. 654 | Or. | 1920
Lead Opinion
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.
*421 “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.”
Denied January 4, 1921.
Rehearing
Petition for Rehearing.
(194 Pac. 428.)
On petition for rehearing. Petition Denied.
Mr. Walter H. Evans, District Attorney, and Mr. Samuel H. Pierce, Deputy District Attorney, for the petition.
Mr. Robert Krims and Mr. A. P. Dodson, contra.
In the former opinion and on its own motion the court dismissed this case for want of jurisdiction. In its petition for a rehearing, appellant county contends:
“That the jurisdiction of this court in the present case may be sustained on three grounds: (1) That the Supreme Court is vested, by the provisions of the Constitution, with authority to revise all final decisions of the Circuit Courts; (2) that the appellate powers generally conferred upon the Supreme Court by Section 548, L. O. L., are unaffected by any provision of the statute relating to appeals from the board of equalization; and (3) that this court, having entertained appeals of this character for a long period of time, is now justified in refusing to alter its practice.”
On the first point, it cites In re North Pacific Presbyterian Board of Missions v. Ah Won et al., 18 Or. 339 (22 Pac. 1105), and Mitchell v. Powers, 16 Or. 487, 492 (19 Pac. 647). Apparently, such decisions sustain appellant’s contention. In June, 1902, Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution was amended by an initiative vote of the people. Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118 (74 Pac. 710, 75 Pac. 222), was decided after that amendment. In that case, on page 156 of 44 Or., on page 723 of 74 Pac., this court held:
“There is no common-law right of appeal. The right is wholly statutory unless expressly secured by the Constitution. The Constitution of Oregon, Article VII, Section 9, does not guarantee a right of appeal from every finding by an inferior court or tribunal. While this section confers upon the Circuit Courts appellate jurisdiction, it leaves the regulation of the mode of proceedings on an appeal and the limitation of the cases wherein an appeal may be taken to be provided. by statute. Whenever the legislature determines this question, and fixes the rule in any particular case, the question is thereby settled whether or*424 not the right to prosecute an appeal exists. The supervisory control conferred upon the Circuit Courts is exercised in this case, as it is in the case of all other inferior tribunals and courts, by writs of review, mcmdamios, injunction, etc., and in fact it is this right of supervisory control which plaintiffs are now invoking in this case.”
Upon the second point, appellant cites Section 9 of Article VII, of the Constitution, which provides:
“All judicial power, authority, and jurisdiction not vested by this Constitution, or by laws consistent therewith, exclusively in some other court, shall belong to the Circuit Courts; and they shall have appellate jurisdiction and supervisory control over the County Courts, and all other inferior courts, officers, and ■tribunals.”
As pointed out in the Kadderly case, such supervisory control is exercised “by writs of review, mandamus, injunction, etc. ” It also cites Section 548, Or. L., which defines a judgment or decree, and Section 549, Or. L., which provides that any party to a judgment or decree may appeal therefrom.
“Appeals may be taken to the Supreme Court from such decrees in the same manner and with the same effect as in other cases in equity, except that notice of appeal must be served and filed within 60 days from the entry of the decree.”
A like provision is made in the Public Utilities Act, Section 6086, Or. L., which provides:
“Either party to said suit, within 60 days after the entry of the judgment or decree of the Circuit Court, m'ay appeal to the Supreme Court.”
As stated in the former opinion, Section 4299, Or. L., provides for an appeal by the property owner to the Circuit Court from the valuation of his property as fixed by the board of equalization; but that is a summary, special proceeding, and the act does not provide for an appeal by either party from the decision of the Circuit Court to this court. It provides, among other things, that, at the trial, “either the appellant or the county as appellee shall be entitled to the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers.” The word “appellant” applies, and is confined, to the property owner, and the word “appellee” is limited to the county and clearly implies that it does not have the right of appeal to this court.
It is true, as appellant’s counsel point out, that there have been three decisions of this court in this class of
Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.
Concurrence Opinion
(Specially Concurring). — I concur in the result reached by Justice Johns, holding that this court is without jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Circuit Court had under Section 4299, Or. L. It is a general rule in most jurisdictions that where a tribunal exercises a special, limited jurisdiction conferred by statute, and in which the procedure is not according to the course of the common law, no appeal lies from its action therein unless such appeal is expressly provided by statute: 2 Cyc. 540. .By the provisions of Section 4299, Or. L., any person who shall have petitioned for the reduction of a particular assessment, or whose assessment has been increased by the board of equalization, and who shall be aggrieved by the action of such board, may appeal therefrom- to the Circuit Court of the county. The appeal shall be heard by the Circuit Court in a summary manner. The Circuit Court is authorized, if it finds that the assessment was made at a greater or less sum than the actual full cash value of the property, or if the same was not fairly or in good faith made, to set aside such
In construing laws governing the right of appeal this principle should be kept in mind that—
“In a controversy concerning the valuation of the property only, the action of the court is generally considered ministerial rather than judicial and consequently is not reviewable on appeal; but if the controversy is with reference to the right of the state to tax the property, or concerning the constitutionality of 'the act providing the method of ascertaining the value of the property, then the question is a judicial one and the decision is appealable ”: 2 R. C. L., § 7.
It is said in Copp v. State, 69 W. Va. 440 (71 S. E. 580, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 669), that—
“In controversies concerning the valuation of property only, there is no appeal from the Circuit Court to this court, because the action of the cotirt is ministerial rather than judicial” — citing Mackin v. Taylor County Court, 38 W. Va. 338 (18 S. E. 632); McLean v. State, 61 W. Va. 537, (56 S. E. 884); Bluefield Water Works Co. v. State, 63 W. Va. 480 (60 S. E. 403).
It is held in Kimber v. Schuylkill County, 20 Pa. St. 366:
“When special appeal to a subordinate is given, there can be no appeal thence to the supreme court unless expressly given, but certiorari will lie to review regularity.”
The opinion of the court was rendered by Black, C. J., who further stated that—
‘ ‘ The judges, when hearing these appeals, are acting as assessors of taxes. We venture to hope that it will be many years before we will be called on to review*428 the assessments of every man in the commonwealth who is dissatisfied with the taxes charged against him. It would require an amount of local information which the County Courts do certainly possess, but which we cannot expect to attain.”
It is said, in 2 Cooley on Taxation, page 1393:
“In some states an appeal is given from the assessors, or from assessing boards, to some specified courts, to which are given limited powers of review. But the right to such an appeal is purely statutory * * .”
The Supreme Court of Colorado, in Board of Commissioners of Teller County v. Pinnacle Gold Min, Co., 36 Colo. 492 (85 Pac. 1005), states, in the matter of appealing a case like the instant one from a decision of the lower court:
“The court has not jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The statute concerning appeals to the District Court from the assessor and from the board of county commissioners is similar to the previous law upon this subject, passed in 1889. There is no provision for an appeal from the District Court.”
It is held that — ■
“The statute under consideration is the source and measure of the power and jurisdiction both of the board of commissioners and the District Court to afford relief to a complaining taxpayer. The remedy thereby given is purely statutory, and exists only because the statute gives it. Thereunder the District Court has not original jurisdiction of the subject matter of the controversy contemplated, which is the alleged unjust assessment, and could not in the first instance, but only by appeal, entertain the petition of one bringing his case within it. * * The doctrine is tersely stated by Judge Cooley, who said that ‘the rule is well established that where an appeal is allowed to any court from an assessing body, whatever the*429 grade of the court, it is one of limited jurisdiction' for such purpose, and must keep strictly within it.’ ”
Many times this court has held that the right to appeal is statutory. It was said by this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Eakin in Sears v. Dunbar, 50 Or. 36 (91 Pac. 145), that—
“The right to appeal a case is one conferred by statute, and is limited to cases falling within the terms of the act. ’ ’
In the case of Portland v. Gaston, 38 Or. 533 (63 Pac. 1051), Chief Justice Bean, delivering the opinion of the court, stated:
“The legislature has the power to define in what cases, and under what circumstances, and in what manner, an appeal may be taken to this court. * * But, when the legislature has prescribed rules of procedure in special proceedings, such rules must be followed, and, if they limit the right, of appeal or specify the court or tribunal in which such proceedings shall terminate, they must govern.”
In the case of Town of La Fayette v. Clark, 9 Or. 225, Waldo, J., in speaking for the court, said:
“Appeals for the removal of causes from an inferior to a superior court for the purpose of obtaining trials de novo, are unknown to the common law, and can only be prosecuted where they are expressly given by statute.”
In the case of State v. Security Savings Co., 28 Or. 410, 417 (43 Pac. 162, 163), this court said that “the right of appeal is purely statutory.” In School Dist. v. Irwin, 34 Or. 431, 435 (56 Pac. 413), it is stated:
“The principle is well settled that, where a particular jurisdiction is conferred upon an inferior court or tribunal, its decision will be final, unless provision is made by statute for an appeal: McGowan v. Duff, 41 Ill. App. 57; Hileman v. Beale, 115 Ill. 355 (5 N. E.*430 108); In re Storey, 120 Ill. 244 (11 N. E. 209). And it has been said by this court that ‘appeals for the removal of causes from an inferior to a superior court, for the purpose of obtaining trials de novo, are unknown to the common law, and can only be prosecuted when they are expressly given by statute.’ ”
In Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Or. 311, 314 (7 Pac. 309, 311), this court says:
“Until the right of appeal is created by statute it does not exist as a strict legal right.”
Justice Strahan, in Fisk v. Henarie, 15 Or. 89, 90 (13 Pac. 760), wrote:
“The right to an appeal depends entirely upon the statute. If the statute does not confer it, it does not exist.”
In City of Portland v. Nottingham, 58 Or. 1 (113 Pac. 28), Justice Burnett said:
“An appeal is not a matter of primary right. It is a privilege, and he who would enjoy that privilege must show some statute conferring it upon him.”
In the Ah Won Case, 18 Or. 339 (22 Pac. 1105), the decision was really put upon the ground that the decree appealed from was an exercise of general equity jurisdiction relating to the custody of the persons and as such was appealable independent of the statute under which the boys’ and girls’ aid society was acting. The same idea is advanced by Chief Justice Moore in Ex parte Bowers, 78 Or. 390, 395 (153 Pac. 412). The opinion in the Goldsmith Estate, 12 Or. 414 (7 Pac. 97, 9 Pac. 565), was written by Justice Thayer, who also wrote the opinion in the Ah Won case. In the Goldsmith case, the judge points out that the insolvent act there under consideration “does not, either by express language or necessary implication, give the right of appeal to the court in any case.”