OCR Text |
Show FURTHER EVIDENCE IFI BIX CASE ORDERED Supreme Court Sends Backj Pingree National Suit to Ogden Tribunal. I Litigation Spring's From Method of Assessing Institution's In-stitution's Taxes. The fupr.-.nv- r-o-;rt or I'Uh r-nt back l.i the S-.-onfl fltriirt.-t mjniI :.t t . t-;.fj or I he I'lNK''"" .Vatlona! bank aK.Unt 'hT county, Impleaded v. ilh .b.vph E. .Storey, 1'iiiiul y t r.:;i mii i -r. Tic: fuilr M riin arb.lm? ov-t tint methods to be adopted adopt-ed In a bunk, and after I'jr-thT I'jr-thT :vllris-c in taken in the dl.'it rb-t 'utiit, find :l mathematical problem worked out, It l-i poj.v.hlc that the roiiiity wilt Ioko $7"K.li: in taxes aln-ridy paid by th lunik. The fnpreme court finds that the (.-runt i.i not. char hh tu the way In u'htcli the c. ,url w r U'i - nut its niath.--init! Ira I problem, which h in Res on t lie 11 iMuunL tu I ir deducted f i'0 in tin; mark tit vnhie of the hank's .stock for Hm real CSt a I A M MMi'MHIIlf II I . "It Is not u.-uul," 'he iTrcii - in admits, "to rrmainl i af-s at law fT the purpose ' of taking further evidence, Hut in a case hui h as this, where it Is ni'-rcly a iirs-finii iirs-finii o an amount (!! -rm 1 nri bb- by a posl-l posl-l i Vtj rule of la w, we a re of the opinion wo have 111' power to direct that the penprr Ulllnlint t)0 aHirl t H i llril. To llll-deriako llll-deriako to enter Judgment mi t lie record as It now Miands would possibly result In KUit- injustice to on.: or the other of Ihn parlies lliiKant." The hank had a capital stock .of ? 1 T T, . -l.iuii. Hurfihis of J7;,(iint and undivided profits of ihl-l.'JI. The assessor, liowi'ver, hi h.i.k'.simk, to.U-i imiit d mi; iim nt-i v.iMir of Iho Htoch at $ T. ::."), Hi a), and used that iih fl hauls, deducting ?i',i;,7i;u for- r--n. esuite and nn iidililiunal 1U per cent of the te-malndur. te-malndur. ' Would Recover Tuxes. Taxes demanded. $H,ri'.i;i. IS. wero paid under protest, and the hank sued for re-cm re-cm ery of $sJ!ts.:!n. Th dist ri' t court allowed the recovery of $iii:j.tU on an instructed in-structed verdict from the Jury. The county iiiMiMis that the court had no power over the county officials in the exorciwe of their discretion when no fraud I was proved, and appealed against allow-tnij allow-tnij any recovery at all. The bank as-HiKud as-HiKud various cross-errors, and wanted to recover a linger amount. The supreme court l'hul.s no fault with the method of assessing as adopted, save In the amount deducted for real estate, ami It says ile record is not clear as to whether tie amount deducted was f the actual assessed value of the. real estate, or whether it was the proper amount to hft deducted for real est a IB of some other assessed value, in accordlnce with tho somewhat involved statutes on the subject, lu the former case the supreme court holds that the rountv should have returned ?mi.y3. lu the latter ease, the county should have returned nothing, in any case, the calculation of the. district court appears to have been in error, according ac-cording to the supreme court. The supreme court holds that, in a 'matter of statutory requirement, suscttp-tibln suscttp-tibln of ascertainment to a mathematical certainty, the court may step in, when both county assessor rind county hoard of equalization have made a palpable error. In other words, in such cases it was not a matter of discretion on the part of the taxing officials as a matter of ma the -ma tical calculation. "It would be a reflection upon the judi-cia judi-cia ry of the state and its efficiency In the administration of justice.'' declares the supreme court, "If we were compelled to hold that the courts arc powerless to correct a palpable error, about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion." Damage Case Upheld. In another case the supreme court decides de-cides that the district court way correct In dismissing a case brought by E,. s. Smart, who was suing the Oregon Short Iine for damages arising out of alleged delay in the unloading of sheep in Idaho. There were twenty carloads in the shipment ship-ment from Pioneer, on a branch line of the company, to Cavinaugh, on the main line. The shipmen (arrived at noon, and, a f t e r so me ca rs were u i i oa d e. d at the short sidetrack and chute, there was a delay of three . hours while the engine and crew which had been "spotting" the cars went to Monepelier. The loading was completed about il p. m. A cold wind sprung up after dark. "Coming off the cars where it was warn:, the sheep commenced to die," it was testified at the hearing, "as soon as they were taken off. Some died oh the right of way in fifteen or twenty minutes. Some died when they arrived at the pasture. pas-ture. More than fifty died." The supreme court holds that the district dis-trict court was correct in dismissing the action. It holds that no negligence on the- part of the railroad company was proven. The opinion is written by justice j A. J. Weber. J n a separate concurring 1 opinion, Justice J. K. Frick holds that, if Smart had any object ion to the manner In which the sheep were being unloaded, he should have expressed it at the time. "If lie was then satisfied, he should not afterward be permitted to ehanee his posit i'on to the detriment of the defendant," defend-ant," it is stated. |