Home/Indiana Court of Appeals/Nicholson, Aud. v. Chamberlain

Nicholson, Aud. v. Chamberlain

155 N.E. 215, 85 Ind. App. 615, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 15
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 18, 1927
DocketNo. 12,618.
StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.E. 215 (Nicholson, Aud. v. Chamberlain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nicholson, Aud. v. Chamberlain, 155 N.E. 215, 85 Ind. App. 615, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Nichols, J.

This is an action by appellee against the county auditor to enjoin him from placing on the tax duplicate $1,000 as and for additional valuation of the property owned by appellee as ordered by. the State Board of Tax Commissioners upon a reassessment. The complaint alleged that the assessment was locally fixed at $4,170; that the county auditor is unlawfully attempting to and will, unless restrained by the court, place an additional assessment of $1,000 against appellee, which additional sum of $1,000, the complaint alleged was not assessed by any officer or board having legal authority to make such additional assessment.

*617 Answer in general denial was filed, and a trial was had upon the issues thus joined, and the court, after hearing the evidence, found for appellee and that he is entitled to a perpetual injunction enjoining and restraining appellant from placing on the tax duplicate of Washington county, for the year 1924, $1,000 as and for additional value of the property of appellee for assessment and taxation. After appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled by the court, judgment was rendered, granting an injunction according to the above finding.

The error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial, presenting that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it is contrary to law, and error in admitting certain evidence which, as contended, was designed to constitute a collateral attack upon the action of the State Board of Tax Commissioners upon appellee’s assessment.

It was stipulated and agreed in open court by the parties that at the time of the filing of this action, appellant’s predecessor in office was about to place on the tax duplicate of Washington county, an assessment of $5,170 against appellee as the value of his' taxable property, which would constitute a raise of the amount of property with which he had been assessed by the proper taxing officers of said county of $1,000. That said additional $1,000, about to be placed on the duplicate, was the amount of the raise which was purported to have been certified down by the state tax board of Indiana. By the record so certified, it appears that on December 5, 1925, as to appellee’s assessment with others, there being lack of information upon which to base findings, the matter was continued by agreement, for further hearing to December 17, 1925.

Appellant’s Exhibit 1 reads as follows:

*618 “The State Board of Tax Commissioners of the State of Indiana met in session pursuant to adjournment- at their usual place of meeting Rooms 231-233 State House, Indianapolis, Saturday, December 6, 1924, at 9:30 A. M., with all the members present.
“John J. Brown, Chairman,
“William A. Hough,
“Philip Zoercher,
“Commissioners.
“Wm; C. Harrison, Secretary.
“Appeals and certified assessments of
“Washington County for the year 1924.
“In the matter of the appeals and certified assessments submitted to the State Board of Tax Commissioners at their third and fourth sessions, for review and reassessment, the Board, after considering all.facts and being fully advised, does now find and order the final assessments for the year 1924 to be as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Reynolds v. Bowen
36 N.E. 756 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Schlosser Bros. v. Huff
128 N.E. 452 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 N.E. 215, 85 Ind. App. 615, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholson-aud-v-chamberlain-indctapp-1927.