Strother Drug Co. v. Taylor

168 S.E. 756, 160 Va. 427, 1933 Va. LEXIS 224
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedApril 7, 1933
StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.E. 756 (Strother Drug Co. v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strother Drug Co. v. Taylor, 168 S.E. 756, 160 Va. 427, 1933 Va. LEXIS 224 (Va. 1933).

Opinion

Epes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The original petition alleges the following facts, which are admitted by the answer of the defendant. Strother Drug Company, Incorporated, was in 1930, and is now, the owner in fee simple of a lot of land at the west corner of Jefferson and Twelfth streets in the city of Lynchburg. This lot is 165 x 132 feet, and has on it a building. In the general reassessment of real estate made in 1930, in the city of Lynchburg, Virginia, this lot with the improvements thereon was assessed at $71,500 (the lot at $18,500 and the improvements at $53,000).

In accordance with the provisions of chapter 411, Acts of 1930, page 874, amending section 344 of the Tax Code of Virginia, a local board of equalization was appointed in 1930. No application was made by Strother Drug Company to this board of equalization for any reduction in its assessment, nor was any change made in it by this board.

On June 22, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of section 344 of the Tax Code of Virginia, as amended by chapter 137, Acts of 1932, page 154, the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg appointed a local “board of equalization of real estate assessments,” whose term of office began on July 1st, and expired October 31, 1932. Strother Drug Company, Incorporated, made application to this board for a reduction in its assessment to equalize it with the assessment of other real estate in the city. On August 17, 1932, this board entered its order decreasing the assessment of the above mentioned lot and its improvements to $55,000 (the value of the lot being placed at $13,500 and of the improvements at $41,500). A certified copy of this order was “promptly” transmitted by the board to D. L. Taylor, commissioner of the revenue for the city.

The petition asserts that by virtue of the provisions of section 346 of the Tax Code of Virginia, as amended by [430]*430chapter 411, Acts 1930, pages 875-876, it was the duty of the commissioner of the revenue, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, to change the assessment of this property on the land book for 1932 to accord with the decrease in assessment made by the board of equalization in its order of August 17, 1932. The commissioner of the revenue did not make such change.

On December 27, 1932, the petitioner expressly requested (in writing) the commissioner to make such change; but the commissioner refused to do so on the ground that “the changes made by the local board of equalization during the year 1932, * * * do not become effective until the year 1933, and would first be made on the land book for that year.”

The tax tickets on this real estate were made out based on the valuation thereof as shown in the general reassessment of 1930, and payment thereof was demanded of the petitioner. Whether the tax so extended against the petitioner on this real estate has been paid or not is not alleged in the petition and does not appear from the record.

The prayer of the original petition is this:

“Wherefore, your petitioner, being without any other adequate remedy, prays that a peremptory writ of mandamus may be awarded by this honorable court directing the said D. L. Taylor, commissioner of revenue of the city of Lynchburg to make upon his land book for the year 1932 the changes in the valuation of your petitioner’s said real estate, for that year made by the said order of said board of equalization, so that your petitioner may have the benefit of said reduction in valuation, by way of exoneration of so much taxes as exceed the proper amount, if the taxes have not been paid by him, and, if the taxes have been paid, to a refund of so much thereof as are erroneous, as is provided for by said section 346.”

Later Strother Drug Company filed a supplemental petition on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. The supplemental petition alleges that the local board of [431]*431equalization appointed in 1932 made over 2,000 reductions in assessments of real estate in the city of Lynchburg; and that in each case D. L. Taylor, commissioner of the revenue, failed and refused to make a corresponding change of the assessments on the land book for 1932; and makes the following prayer:

“Wherefore your petitioner, on behalf of all the real estate owners and taxpayers of the said city of Lynchburg, as well as on his own behalf, they being without any other adequate remedy, prays that a peremptory writ of mandamus be awarded by this honorable court directing the said D. L. Taylor, commissioner of revenue of the city of Lynch-burg, to make upon his land book for the year 1932 each and all changes in the valuation of real estate in said city for the year 1932, which were made by the orders of and transmitted to him by said board of equalization during its term commencing July 1, 1932, and ending October 31, 1932, so as to apply to and become effective for said year 1932.”

D. L. Taylor, commissioner, has answered, admitting the allegations of the petition; but asserting that the mandamus prayed for should not issue for two reasons: (1) The changes made in real estate assessments by the board of equalization in 1932 did not become effective until 1933. (3) The petitioner has an adequate “remedy at law, by which it can go into the local court in the city of Lynchburg and receive relief from all erroneous assessments, if erroneous; or it can pay the taxes for the year 1932 and apply to the court for a refund of taxes wrongfully collected.”

The record does not show whether or not the commissioner of the revenue had completed the making up of the land book for 1932 at the time the order of August 17, 1932, was entered by the local board of equalization; but the court will take judicial notice of the fact that it had been completed before the original petition was filed and before the petitioner, on December 27, 1932, wrote the commissioner requesting that he change its assessment on the 1932 land book to accord with the order of the board.

[432]*432The determination of the principal question here presented requires an examination of the history of the statutes of Virginia relating to the equalization of real estate assessments by local boards of equalization; but it is not necessary to carry this examination further back than 1924.

By chapter 397, Acts 1924, page 574, local boards of equalization with power to equalize real estate assessments were provided for. This act (section 1) authorized the appointment of such a board “on or before the first day of June of the year of the quinquennial assessment of real estate” by the judge of the circuit or corporation court of each county or city. Subsections “a” and “e” of section 2 of this act read in part as follows:

“2. Powers and duties of local boards of equalization.— Each local board of equalization of assessments shall have power and it shall be its duty:

“(a) To equalize the assessments of real estate within the county or city, and for this purpose it shall review the land books as soon as they are completed by the land assessors, and make such changes therein as it may determine. The books shall be delivered to the local board of equalization by the county land assessors not later than the first day of July and by the city land assessors not later than the firt day of September; provided that the judge of the court in which the land assessor qualified, for cause shown shall have the right to extend the time for the delivery of such books for a period not exceeding thirty days.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.E. 756, 160 Va. 427, 1933 Va. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strother-drug-co-v-taylor-va-1933.