Shoemaker, Ex parte (Cal. App.). Shull v. Shull (Colo.).. Shutzler, State v. (Wash.) Silverfield, Barnes v. (Or.) 547 State v. Edwards (Kan.).. 1009 10 560 640 28 994 907 929 711 1199 Silveria v. Alexander (Cal. App.). 303 Sims, Beeler v. (Kan.). 237 State v. Graves (Or.). 484 Skaala v. Twin Falls Logging Co. (Wash.) 897 State v. Hall (Or.). 475 Slater v. Selover (Cal. App.). 298 State v. Hardin (Wash.) .1199 Slosser, Chicago, M. & P. S. R. Co. v. State v. Harris (Or.). 109 (Wash.) 706 Smith v. Anderson (Or.). .... .1158 State v. Holcomb (Kan.). 266 429 Smith v. Bell (Okl.). Smith v. Hanson (Kan.). Smith v. Landis (Kan.). Smith Lumber Co. v. Russell (Kan.). .1058 State v. Jackson (Wash.). 819 State v. Kansas City (Kan.). 578 State, Krivanek v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 372 State v. Leonard (Or.).. 347 State, Macready v. (Ókl. Cr. App.) 48 779 784 1148 57 944 234 218 162 188 232 .113, 681 629 833 Southworth, Nelson v. (Kan.). Sparling, Krulikoski v. (Wash.). Sperry & Hutchinson Co., City of Tacoma v. (Wash.). State v. Meyerkamp (Wash.) 942 544 State v. Miller (Wash.). 693 Spokane & I. E. R. Co., Kempf v. (Wash.) 77 State v. Mooney (Kan.). 228 195 Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Belt (Okl.) 606 State v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (Wash.). 47 .1198 599 Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co., Cameron Lumber Co. v. (Idaho). .1114 Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co. v. Cameron Lumber Co. (Idaho).. State v. Pruett (Okl.). ...... 365 .1121 State v. Rice (Kan.). .1016 Stahlnaker, Ex parte (Kan.). 832 State v. Rule (Okl. Cr. App.). 807 Stanhope, Kinsman v. (Mont.). .1083 State v. Rholeder (Wash.). 914 Standard Oil Co. v. Paragon Oil Co. State, Scribner v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 626 (Wash.) 531 State, Sears v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1198 Stanley, State v. (Wash.). 689 State v. Seattle (Wash.).. 695 Stanton Co., Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. State v. Seattle & Puget Sound Packing (Wash.) 903 Co. (Wash.).. 694 Stark, Davies v. (Cal. App.) 315 State v. Sefrit (Wash.). 725 State v. Allen (Wash.).. .......... State, Altschul v. (Or.). State, Baldwin v. (Okl. Cr. App.) State v. Selby (Or.). 657 845 284 State v. Ball (Kan.). .1012 State v. Smith (Or.)... 424 State v. Barbur (Or.). 126 State v. Stanley (Wash.). 689 846 State v. Superior Court for Chehalis County (Wash.).. 722 State v. Superior Court for King County (Wash.)... 539 State v. Boerlin (Nev.). 738 State v. Superior Court for Spokane Coun State v. Bogris (Idaho). 789 ty (Wash.). 708 State v. Bracking (Wash.). 530 State, Browder v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 188 State v. Superior Court of Jefferson County State, Bryan v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 392 (Wash.) 292 ... State v. Bunyard (Or.). 449 State v. Superior Court of King County State v. Callahan (Kan.). 189 (Wash.) 291 State, Chambliss v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1197 State v. Superior Court of Whatcom Coun State v. Chapin (Or.)... .1187 ty (Wash.).. 32 State v. Chehalis Boom Co. (Wash.) 719 State v. Vinn (Mont.). 773 State, Cofer v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1197 State v. Vosgien (Wash.). 947 State, Collins v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 806 State v. Warner (Kan.). 220 State v. Conroy (Wash.).. 538 State v. Dillard (Or.).. 127 State v. District Court of Twelfth Judicial 755 654 153 State, Wood v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 391 597 257 .1170 [Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.] Arnold v. C. Hoffman & Son Mill. Co., 143 P. Overton v. State, 140 P. 1135. 413. THE PACIFIC REPORTER VOLUME 144 (26 Idaho, 455) NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. CLEARWA- (Supreme Court of Idaho. Nov. 4, 1914.) PLAINT-DISCRIMINATION BY ASSESSOR. Where a railroad company is the owner of about 4,000 acres of land, consisting of about 100 40-acre tracts distributed over a county and in many different sections, and it is alleged in the complaint that the assessor, "by a systematic, intentional, and illegal method of assessing said land, placed thereon a valuation and assessment which, after being equalized by the state board of equalization, exceeded the full cash value of the property by 25 per cent.," and that other and similar land of the same value in said county was assessed and valued at 75 per cent. less than the appellant's lands, and that said valuation and assessment were placed on appellant's lands by the assessor without making any investigation whatever and in violation of law and of the rights of appellant, and said valuation and assessment were made with the design, systematic and illegal effort on the part of the assessor to unjustly and unlawfully discriminate against appellant and its property, held, that said allegations show an unlawful, illegal, and fraudulent discrimination by the assessor in assessing said property. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. 88 1242, 1245-1257; Dec. Dig. § 611.*] 2. TAXATION (§ 608*)-ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT -RIGHT TO ENJOIN. In this class of cases courts of equity will not interfere to correct mere errors of judgment as to valuation of property, since value is a matter of opinion; but where the allegations of the complaint show that the officer refused to exercise his judgment, and by an arbitrary and capricious exercise of official authority has fraudulently attempted to defeat the law, instead of enforce it, a court of equity will relieve against such illegal and fraudulent actions of an assessor. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1230-1241; Dec. Dig. § 608.*] 3. TAXATION (§ 611*)-ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT ACTION TO ENJOIN-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT-DISCRIMINATION BY ASSESSOR. Held, that the facts alleged in the complaint, if proven, would establish fraud as a conclusion of law. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1242, 1245-1257; Dec. Dig. § 611.*] 4. TAXATION (§ 608*)-FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT-RIGHT TO ENJOIN. property at more than double what he assessed other property of the same class and value, he perpetrates a fraud from which a court of equity, upon proper application, will relieve. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1230-1241; Dec. Dig. § 608.*] TAXATION (§ 611*)—FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT-ACTION TO ENJOIN-PRESUMPTION. difference of opinion as to the value of the In this case it is not a question of a mere property, but it is a question of no opinion or judgment at all as to its value; since it is admitted by the demurrer that the assessor did intentionally and illegally assess said property at more than double what other property of the same kind and value was assessed, and the law presumes that he intended the natural inevitable effect of his acts in assessing said property. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. 88 1242, 1245-1257; Dec. Dig. § 611.*]. 6. TAXATION (§ 608*)-ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT -RIGHT TO ENJOIN. Equity will not relieve against an assessment merely because it happens to be at a higher rate than that of other property of the same class or kind, for the reason that absolute uniformity under an honest judgment may not be obtained; but where it is made to appear that honest judgment was not used and that an illegal and unlawful value was placed upon the property by the assessor, the injured party may obtain redress in a court of equity. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1230-1241; Dec. Dig. § 608.*] 7. TAXATION (§ 608*)-VALUATION-FRaud. In a case where the valuation is so unreasonable as to show that the assessor must have known that it was wrong and that he could not have been honest in fixing it, held, that such a valuation is clearly a fraud upon the owner. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1230-1241; Dec. Dig. § 608.*] 8. TAXATION (§ 610*)-ILLEGAL TAX — INJUNCTION CONDITION PRECEDENT - PAYMENT OF TAX. In a case of this kind the trial court should require the plaintiff to pay the amount of taxes which the allegations of the complaint show are reasonable and just before issuing any restraining order against the collection of the portion of the tax alleged to have been illegally assessed. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1244; Dec. Dig. § 610.*] Appeal from District Court, Clearwater County; Edgar C. Steele, Judge. Action by the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation, against the County of Clearwater and others to restrain the col Held that, where an assessor, by a system-lection of a tax. Demurrer to complaint susatic, intentional, and illegal method, assessed tained, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed. For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes 144 P.-1 Cannon & Ferris, of Spokane, Wash., and James E. Babb, of Lewiston, for appellant. J. H. Peterson, Atty. Gen., T. C. Coffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. A. Holsclaw, of Orofino, and G. W. Tannahill, of Lewiston, for respondents. assessor, SULLIVAN, C. J. This action was brought by the Northern Pacific Railway Company against Clearwater county, its treasurer, taxpayer, and auditor, to restrain the collection of certain taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed for the year 1913 on about 4,000 acres of land owned by the appellant in Clearwater county, and for other relief; also for a preliminary writ of injunction to restrain the tax collector of said county and his successors in office from extending said property upon any delinquent list or delinquency certificates, and enjoining the defendants from advertising said property for sale and from selling the same and from making certificates of sale, and other relief. exceeded the full cash value of the property by 25 per cent.; that the full cash value of said property was at that time, and now is, the sum of $62,334.75; and that the valuation placed thereon by the assessor, after being equalized by the state board, was and is the sum of $81,000. (The full cash value of each and every subdivision of said land is specifically set forth in the complaint as is also the valuation and assessment placer thereon by the assessor.) It is also alleged that it was the duty of the assessor in assessing said land to actually determine, as nearly as possible, the full cash value thereof, and that the assessor, in direct violation of his duty in this regard, failed and neglected to take any steps whatever to learn the full cash value, but, on the contrary, valued and assessed the same and all thereof at a flat and uniform valuation, and that said lands differ in character and value and have no flat or uniform value; that the valuation and assessment was placed thereon by A demurrer was filed to said complaint on said assessor without making any investigafour grounds: (1) That the complaint does tion whatever to actually determine as nearnot state facts sufficient to constitute a cause ly as practicable what all the tracts of land of action; (2) that the court had no juris- and each thereof were worth in money, or diction to hear and determine said cause; the full cash value thereof, as is the duty (3) that it affirmatively appears that the of said assessor under the law, but, on the board of equalization of Clearwater county contrary, said assessor, disregarding his duty and the state board of equalization have ex- in this regard, adopted a speculative valuaclusive and original jurisdiction of the mat- tion on said lands and all thereof; that said ters alleged in the complaint, and that said valuations and assessments so made are boards have passed upon the matters alleged greater and higher than the assessments and and charged in plaintiff's complaint and ren- valuations made by said assessor on other dered their judgment thereon, and that the lands in Clearwater county of the same gensame was filed and was and is res adjudi-eral character and of the same full cash valcata; (4) that it affirmatively appears that ue, and are unfair, unjust, and unequal, as the plaintiff has not tendered the amount of taxes due, owing, and unpaid, or the amount alleged in plaintiff's complaint to be just and reasonable, for the taxes due, owing, and unpaid upon said property for the year 1913. Said demurrer was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff elected to stand upon its complaint in said action, and declined to amend and judgment of dismissal was entered. The appeal is from the judgment. [1] It is stated by the appellant in its brief that the court sustained the demurrer for the reason that the court was of the opinion that fraud was not alleged in the complaint, and for that reason the complaint did not state facts sufficient to warrant a court of equity in taking jurisdiction of said matter. It is alleged in the complaint, in substance, that the appellant is the owner of some 4,000 acres of unimproved land situated in Clearwater county, and said land is specifically described by an exhibit attached to the complaint, wherein it appears that said land consists of about 100 40-acre tracts scattered throughout said county situated in many different sections; that the assessor, by a systematic, intentional, and illegal method of assessing said property, placed thereon a valuation and assessment which, after being compared with the assessments and valuations made by said assessor on land in the same locality and of the same class, character, and full cash value; that all lands in said county, save and except the lands here in controversy, are valued and assessed by said assessor at only 50 per cent. of their full cash value; that the valuation and assessment made by said assessor against the property of appellant is 25 per cent. more than its full cash value, and is unfair, unequal, and unjust, and the plan and scheme adopted by said assessor in assessing appellant's property at 25 per cent. in excess of its full cash value, and in assessing all other lands in said county at only 50 per cent. of their full cash value, is in violation of law and of the rights of appellant, and is the result of design and a systematic effort on the part of said assessor to unjustly and unlawfully discriminate against appellant and its property; that appellant, for the purpose of having the said valuation so made by the assessor reduced to the full cash value of said property, as required by law, did on or about the 26th of July, 1913, and within the time required by law, and while the board of equalization of Clearwater county was in session, make application to said |