76 Neb. 666 | Neb. | 1906
In May, 1904, the county assessor of Douglas county delivered to appellee a printed notice accompanied by a blank form requiring it to make and return a statement for the purposes of assessment and taxation showing in detail the description and amount or value of its tangible personal property situate in the county and also “gross receipts for the year, representing franchise valuation as per detailed statement on back.’’ The president of the company made a return under oath showing the amount in value of such personal property to be $20,208.90, and of such gross receipts $27,092.29, and computing the two items as a “total personal” of $47,301.19. Substantially
It seems to us that the appellee, plaintiff below, mistook its remedy. It cannot be disputed, and it is not attempted so to be, that the assessor and county board were acting within the limits of the powers conferred upon them respectively by the statute, nor can it be questioned that the plaintiff was subject to taxation upon its tangible person
It is also urged that the action of the board could have been properly founded only upon a formal written complaint and that none was filed with it. The statute, unlike the preceding revenue law, does not require such a complaint. Comp. St. 1903, ch. 77, art. I, sec. 122. The plaintiff was served with the statutory notice and appeared in response thereto, and made no demand for a formal complaint and no objection because of its absence. If there was or had been any irregularity of procedure in this respect, it was or would have been insufficient to deprive the board of jurisdiction, which it acquired by service of notice and the appearance of the party. The error, if prejudicial, would have been subject to correction by petition in error in the district court, hut would not have wholly avoided the proceeding so that it could have been held for naught in a. collateral action. In short, if the plaintiff’s property and franchises were excessively valued for taxation, or if prejudicial errors and irregularities intervened in the procedure of the county hoard, the statute afforded the plaintiff a plain, adequate and speedy remedy, and the plaintiff’s petition in equity states no cause of action. It is recommended, therefore, that the judgment of the district court he reversed and the action dismissed.
REVERSED.