State ex rel. Nieman v. Fangbouer

14 Ohio C.C. 104, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 801
CourtOhio Circuit Courts
DecidedMay 15, 1897
StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ohio C.C. 104 (State ex rel. Nieman v. Fangbouer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Nieman v. Fangbouer, 14 Ohio C.C. 104, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 801 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1897).

Opinion

Haynes, J.

A petition for mandamus has been filed in this court, praying that a writ may issue, requiring the defendant to perform certain acts. The appearance of the auditor has been entered in the case, and demurrer has been filed to this petition. Strictly speaking, in practice, perhaps the demurrer at this point is not the proper remedy. The supreme court, however, has held that the question of the sufficiency of the petition may be raised by the court in deciding whether it will allow a writ to issue. The writ shall not issue unless it shows upon its face that there is a proper ■cause of action. Mr. Niernan states that he was the duly ■elected treasurer of Woodville township, and says Wood-ville township has a large amount of land, containing and producing mineral products, to-wit: oil; that there is drilled, and now in operation in said township, a large number ■of oil wells, producing mineral products, to-wit: oil; and that there will be hereafter, a large number of wells drilled, which, in all probability, will produce a large quantity of ■oil.

Relator further says, that by the provisions of section 2792, Rev. Statutes, as amended January 30, 1891 vol. 88, p.13, Ohio Laws, the board of equalization of Sandusky county assessed on said oil wells, in said township, the sum of $2318.67, as the developments of said oil wells were made, over and above the decennial appraisement of lands upon which oil welte are situated. That the owners, operators and managers of said oil wells, in said township, have long since paid into the treasury of said Sandusky county, Ohio, the said sum of $2318.67, as provided for so as aforsaid in said amended section 2792,and that the said $2318.67, are now in the treasury of said Sandusky county, Ohio.

Relator further says, that by the provisions of an act of the General Assembly, of the state of Ohio, passed April [106]*10627th, 1896. vol. 92, p. 748, Ohio Laws, which is as follows:

“House Bill, No, 673. An act to provide a road fund in townships where oil wells are located, or may hereafter be located. (Sandusky county.)
“Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly o the state of Ohio, That in all counties , which, by the federal census of 1890, had a population of 30,617, nor more than 30,900, any monies arising from the tax on oil wells,drilled, or hereafter to be drilled, shall be collected by the treasurer of the county as other taxes are, and be returned to the township treasury where such oil wells are located, in any sum not exceeding $2,500 per annum, to be used as a road fund in any such township.
“Section 2, Said fund shall be under the control of the township trustees, and shall be by them expended in maintaining and building roads, as to them seem advisable.
“Section 3. All acts,and parts of acts,in conflict with the provisions of this act, are, as to such conflict, hereby repealed, and this act shall taue effect, and be in force, from and after its passage.”

It is provided that in all counties, which by the federal census of 1890, have a population of 30,617, nor more than 30,900, any money arising from the tax on oil wells, drilled or hereafter to be drilled, shall be collected by the treasurer of the county as other taxes are, and be returned to the township treasurer, where said oil wells are located, in any sum not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) per annum, to be used as a road fund in any such township.

He then states the population of Sandusky county; and that there is now, under, and by virtue of said last mentioned act of the General Assembly of the state of Ohio, passed April 27th, 1896, to the credit of the treasurer of said Woodville township, Sandusky county, Ohio, the sum of two thousand three hundred and eighteen and 67-100 dollars.

That by reason of the boring and drilling of said wells [107]*107in said township, the roads have been-cut up and destroyed by hauling thereon engines, boilers and timbers,and it is necessary, in order to place said highways in a secure condition, that said money aforesaid collected be returned to said treasurer, to enable the township trustees to spend the same on the public highways of said township, as provided by section 2, etc.

Relator says he has demanded the return of this money, and it has been refused, and he therefore prays that a writ of mandamus issue commanding said defendant to issue his warrant upon the county treasurer of said county, for the payment of said above named sum.

There is a little trouble in regard to this allegation of the petition, as to the amount of taxes, for the reason that it does not follow the statute. Tt says under section 2792 Rev. Statutes, as amended January 30, 1891,vol. 88, p. 13 Ohio Laws, the board of county commissioners, acting as a board of equalization, assessed on said oil wells, in said township, the sum of $2318,67. If this is literally true, the money has not been properly raised. It has not been raised in pursuance of the statute. We have assumed, and shall assume, in deciding this case, that this money is the amount of taxes that have been levied upon certain values that have been made by the board of equalization of the county upon oil well property. The fact is found in section 2792 Rev. Statutes,a s amended in vol. 88, Ohio Laws p. 13:

“Each separate parcel of real property shall be valued at its value in money, excluding the value of the crops growing thereon; but the price for which such real property would sell at auction, or at forced sale, shall not be taken as the criterion of the true válue, and where the fee of the soil of any tract, or parcel of land, is in any person or persons, natural or artificial, and the right to any minerals therein in another, or others, the same shall be valued and listed agreeably to such ownership, in separate entries, specifying the interests listed, and shall be taxed to the parties owning tbe different interests respectively.”

[108]*108That is to say, the land is returned at its value, and the oil wells are to be listed at their value.

“Provided the assessor shall deduct from the value of any such tracts of land lying outside of municipal corporations, the amount of land occupied and used by a canal, or used as a public highway at the time of such assessment, and if the assessor fails to do so, the county auditor is hereby authorized to make the deductions as herein provided; and provided further, that the annual board of equalization may reduce the mineral value assessed against lands containing or producing petroleum (oil), natural gas, coal, or limestone, fire-clay or other minerals, in proportion as the product of such mineral has diminished, “ (now comes the clause upon which it says the board has acted in this matter:) “if such mineral product was considered as a part of the value of said real estate in its previous appraisement for taxation, and annual assessors or boards of equalization may assess such mineral values as developments of its product or existence are made. ”

That is to say, if the productions are increased, the board may increase the amount of the value upon the duplicate. When the assessment is made, it stands the same as the assessment of real estate or other property, and is subject to taxation in the same manner as taxes are levied and assessed upon other property generally.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Ohio C.C. 104, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-nieman-v-fangbouer-ohiocirct-1897.