The assessment of property is in the nature of a judicial proceeding, and it is essential that the law authorizing it should provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard before it becomes final, or it will lack the essential ingredient of due process of law. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 9 Sawy. (U.S.) 165. And see Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, III U.S. 701.

Assessments of property" which has escaped taxation," if complained of as excessive or illegal, should not be collected by coercive process until passed upon by the board of county commissioners. Lehman v. Robinson, 59 Ala. 219. But the owner must claim to have been prejudiced, or there need be no revision. Scott County v. Hinds, 50 Minn. 204.

1. An application to the board of equalization or review for an abatement, is the proper remedy in all cases of error in the assessment. Clinton School Dist.'s Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 315; Kimber v. Schuylkill County, 20 Pa. St. 366; Wharton v. Birmingham, 37 Pa. St. 371; Everitt's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 216; Hutchinson v. Pittsburg, 72 Pa. St. 320; Carlisle School Dist. v. Hepburn, 79 Pa. St. 159; Central Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Equalization, 43 Cal. 365; Morgan v. Smithson, 9 III. 368; Macklot v. Davenport. 17 Iowa 379; Richards v. Wapello County, 48 Iowa 510; Little v. Greenleaf, 7 Mass. 236; Osborn v. Danvers, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 98; Preston v. Boston, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 7; Howev. Boston, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 273; Salmond v. Hanover, 13 Allen (Mass.) 119; Charlestown v. Middlesex County, IOI Mass. 87; Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64; Hicks v. Westport, 130 Mass. 480; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; Walker v. Cochran, 8 N. H. 166.

For instances where property might have been valued and assessed together as one estate, and the taxes as assessed were too large, see People v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 89 Ill. 116; Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston, 9 Met. (Mass.) 199; where one is improperly assessed in the wrong town, Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Me. 404; Hemingway v. Machias, 33 Me. 445; Waite v. Prince

ton, 66 Me. 225; where one is properly taxed for real estate in a town, but improperly taxed for other real estate not in the town, Salmond v. Hanover, 13 Allen (Mass.) 119; Bailly v. Buell, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 158; where one is taxed for the whole property, when he is taxable only for an undivided share, Davis v. Macy, 124 Mass. 193.

Where one holding personal property in trust for another, is improperly taxed, on account of such property in trust, for a larger amount than he otherwise would be. Bates v. Boston, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 93; Bourne v. Boston, 2 Gray (Mass.) 494.

Applies to Local Assessments.-Similarly, in the case of irregularities in regard to street improvements for which assessments are levied, application should be made to the board of supervisors. Coulin v. Seamen, 22 Cal. 546; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75; Nolan v. Reese, 32 Cal. 485; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497; Windsor v. Field, 1 Conn. 279; Patterson v. Baumer, 3 Iowa 477; Wright v. Boston, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 233.

For an abatement of a disproportionate assessment for a street improvement, see Matter of Auchmutz, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 324.

Where the taxpayer is properly assessed for one estate, the remedy for the improper assessment of another estate is by petition for abatement. Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508. And in Clarke v. Stearns County, 47 Minn. 552, it was held that the assessment to the owner at his place of residence, of property engaged in business in another taxing district, is merely erroneous, and can only be remedied by application for an abatement.

2. Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182; Hemingway v. Machias, 33 Me. 445; Waite v. Princeton, 66 Me. 225; Gilpatrick v. Saco, 57 Me. 277; Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Me. 404; Comstock v. Grand Rapids, 54 Mich. 641; Williams 7. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120; Hughes v. Klien, 30 Pa. St. 227; Randle v. Williams, 18 Ark. 380; San Jose Gas Co. v. January, 57 Cal. 614; Jeffersonville, etc., R. Co. v. McQueen, 49 Ind. 64; Norcross 7. Milford, 150 Mass. 237. And see State v. Fyler, 48 Conn. 145; Mon

roe v. New Canaan, 43 Conn. 309; Madison County v. Smith, 95 Ill. 328; Holten v. Bangor, 23 Me. 264; State v. Danser, 23 N. J. L. 552; Vose v. Willard, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 320; Tripp v. Merchants' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 12 R. I. 435; infra, this title, Remedies for Erroneous and Illegal Taxation, subtit., General Rights of the Taxpayer as to Remedies.

If not corrected in the mode pointed out by statute, the judgment of the assessors is conclusive. Stanley v. Albany County, 121 U. S. 535.

But see People v. Duguid (Supreme Ct.), 22 N. Y. Supp. 988, where it was held that a failure to appear before the board, merely raised a question of laches. But in this case it was held that the statute gave a right to review the assessment by certiorari as a concurrent remedy with that of appeal to the board. 1. People v. Haupt, 104 N. Y. 377; People v. Tax Com'rs, 99 N. Y. 254; People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; People v. Dolan, 11 N. Y. Supp. 35; 57 Hun (N. Y.) 589; New Orleans v. Canal, etc., Co., 32 La. Ann. 157; New Orleans v. Canal, etc., Co., 29 La. Ann. 851; New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 31 La. Ann. 270, 475; State v. Louisiana Mut. Ins. Co., 19 La. Ann. 474; Leeds v. Hardy, 43 La. Ann. 810; Green v. Gruber, 26 La. Ann. 694; New Orleans v. Buckner, 28 La. Ann. 414; Frost v. New Orleans, 28 La. Ann. 417; First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph Tp., 46 Mich. 526; Caledonia Tp. v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216. And see Republica v. Deaves, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 464. Where objections must be filed by a certain day, they must be placed on file before that day commences. Burhans v. Norwood Park, 138 Ill. 147. Under the Iowa statutes, no time is prescribed within which an appeal may be taken, and no bond is required to be given by the appellant. Ingersoll v. Des Moines, 46 Îowa 553. And see Porter v. Helmick, 2 Iowa 87.

But in Trust, etc., Co. v. Portsmouth, 59 N. H. 33, it was held that where the petitioner was prevented from exhibiting an account, by reason of accident, mistake or misfortune, without fault on his part, he did not lose his right of appeal.

When the Time Begins to Run.-The time begins to run from the time notice

But this

of the completion of the roll is given. See People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142; People v. Haupt, 104 N. Y. 377; People v. Tax Com'rs, 99 N. Y. 254; Matter of Corwin, 135 Ñ. Y. 245; Matter of McLean (Supreme Ct.), 6 N. Y. Supp. 230; Nashville v. Weiser, 54 Ill. 245; Brunswick v. Finney, 54 Ga. 317; O'Brien v. Cogswell, 17 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 420.

An omission to give the notice does not affect the validity of the assessment, but simply leaves the right to review unlimited as to time. People v. Haupt, 104 N. Y. 377. And see State v. Washoe County, 14 Nev. 140.

But the published notice of the completion of the assessment rolls is intended for the information of taxpayers within the jurisdiction only, and has no operation upon non-residents having no taxable property within such locality and no reason to suppose they have been taxed. McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142.

2. Conlin v. Seamen, 22 Cal. 546; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75; Nolan v. Reese, 32 Cal. 484; Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 519; Windsor v. Field, I Conn. 279; Peoria v. Kidder, 26 Ill. 351; Adsit v. Lieb, 76 Ill. 198; New Orleans v. Canal, etc., Co., 32 La. Ann. 157; Schmidt v. New Orleans, 28 La. Ann. 429; Deane v. Todd, 22 Mo. 90; Aldrich v. Cheshire R. Co., 21 N. H. 359; People v. Tax Com'rs, 99 N. Y. 254; Hughes 7. Kline, 30 Pa. St. 230; Lincoln v. Worcester, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 55; Salmond v. Hanover, 13 Allen (Mass.) 119; Ward v. Gallatin County, 12 Mont. 23; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Patterson, 10 Mont. 90; Stanley v. Albany County, 121 U. S. 535; Meade v. Haines, 81 Mich. 261.

If the taxpayer does not have his assessment corrected and perfected when he has power to do so, he is assumed to admit its correctness. First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph Tp., 46 Mich. 530.

He is without equity to have the collection of the tax restrained by injunction, Van Nort's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 118; and the court may, in its discretion, refuse to aid him, Poulson v. Matthews, 40 N. J. L. 268; and where the assessment was not fraudulent, he loses all remedy, State v. Wright, 4

Nev. 251; even though he was told by the assessor that the assessment would be reduced, People v. Lots in Ashley, 122 Ill. 297.

If one has failed to make the statutory return and to appeal to the board of equalization, he can have no remedy in the courts. Price v. Kramer, 4 Colo. 546.

Where a right of action to set aside taxes has been lost by failure to make objection before a board of review, the subsequent repeal of the act requiring objection before the board, does not restore the right. Boorman v. Juneau County, 76 Wis. 550.

Where a party files an objection to an assessment, with the county clerk, who promises to notify him when to appear before the board, but fails to do so, he has no ground for relief under the head of accident or mistake, the clerk's neglect while acting as his agent being his own. Felsenthal v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 21.

Nor is it any excuse that he was prevented from appearing before the county board by the fraudulent representations of the assessor that the valuation would be reduced by such board to one-third of the "fair cash value." People v. Lots in Ashley, 122 Ill. 297. In Metcalf v. Messenger, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 325, it was held that a taxpayer is not estopped to allege any irregularity in the assessment by reason of his non-appearance at a meeting of the assessors, when it does not appear that a meeting was held or that notice thereof was given.

A statute providing that persons dissatisfied with an assessment must file objections with the board at its August meeting, does not apply to cases where the land has been properly valued in the first instance and no objection made by the taxpayer, and if the board raises the assessment at such meeting, the right to apply for a reduction is not lost by failure to appeal within five days in accordance with the statute. Simmons v. Scott County, 68 Miss. 37. 1. In such case the taxpayer is not confined to proceedings before the board; as where no authority to levy or assess the tax exists. Dickey v. Polk County, 58 Iowa 287; Barber v.

Farr, 54 Iowa 57; New Orleans v. McArthur, 12 La. Ann. 47; Davis v. Burnett, 77 Tex. 3; St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258; Silver v. Schuylkill, 32 Pa. St. 356; Com. v. Delaware Div. Canal Co., 123 Pa. St. 594; McLean v. Jephson, 123 N. Y. 142; Matter of Ulster County Sav. Bank, 20 Hun (N. Y.) 481; Paddock v. Lewis, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 521; Crane v. Janesville, 20 Wis. 305; State v. Williston, 20 Wis. 228; Williams v. Saginaw, 51 Mich. 120; McCoy . Anderson, 47 Mich. 502; Judkins v. Reed, 48 Me. 386; Bemis v. Boston, 14 Allen (Mass.) 366; Charlestown v. Middlesex County, 109 Mass. 270; Fairbanks v. Kittredge, 24 Vt. 9; Babcock v. Granville, 44 Vt. 325. where the assessment is fraudulent. Buttenuth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Ill. 535; 5 Am. St. Rep. 545; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Granger, 17 R. I. 77.

Or

And see Chicago v. Wright, 32 Ill. 192; Taylor Bros. Iron Works Co. v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 554; Pueblo County v. Wilson, 15 Colo. 90.

But fraud must be established by the evidence, or follow as a conclusion of law from the facts proven, and no mere discrepancy between the valuation of the property and the judgment of the court is sufficient to impeach the assessment. St. Louis Bridge, etc., R. Co. v. People, 127 Ill. 627; an excessive valuation by an assessor, contrary to his official judgment, is a fraud. State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 7 Nev. 99.

An assessment is not void because legal taxes are blended with illegal ones, but is merely an overvaluation which the board of equalization will correct on application. People v. Arguello, 37 Cal. 524.

Where the ones making the assessment were not assessors, either de jure or de facto, a writ of certiorari to review the assessment will be dismissed; being absolutely void, it cannot be thus reviewed. People v. Parker, 117 N. Y. 86.

In Colorado, one appealing to the county board on the ground that the tax is illegal, is not thereby precluded from resorting to the courts to test its validity. Pueblo County v. Wilson, 15 Colo. Where property is assessed for a

90.

certain amount, with the consent of the owner, and this amount is raised by the board of equalization and the owner appeals and obtains a reduction to the original amount, he cannot be heard to contend that it is not subject to assessment. Phelps Mortgage Co. v. Board of Equalization, 84 Iowa 610.

1. Commissioners.-Sumner v. Colfax County, 14 Neb. 524; Weaver v. State, 39 Ala. 535; State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev. 392; Pierre Water Works Co. v. Hughes County, 5 Dakota 145.

Supervisors.-Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1; Atty. Gen'l v. Sanilac, 42 Mich. 72; Meridian . Phillips, 65 Miss. 362.

In Massachusetts, the application may be made either to the county commissioners or to the assessors, and an appeal from the decision of the latter to the superior court of the county may be made within thirty days after notice of the decision and on payment of the tax under protest. See National Bank of Commerce v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 313.

Under the Iowa statute, township trustees are constituted a board for the equalization of assessments of property taxable in every township, and have the same power as those usually conferred upon boards of supervisors. Keck v. Keokuk County, 37 Iowa 547.

In Pennsylvania, the appeal from unjust assessments for mercantile taxes is to the board of mercantile appraisers. See Crist v. Morris, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 357

In Ohio, the board of equalization is composed of the county commissioners, county auditor, and county surveyor, State v. Holmes, 20 Ohio Št. 474; and in New Hampshire and Vermont, the selectmen have authority to review the assessments, Edes v. Boardman, 58 N. H. 580; Briggs' Petition, 29 N. H. 547; Leach v. Blakely, 34 Vt. 134; while in Kentucky, it is the board of tax commissioners. Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112.

Legality of Appointment.-It is essential to the validity of the board that it be made up in the manner provided by statute. Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112. And see Hough v. Hastings, 18 Ill. 312. And if the board is author

ized to alter or increase assessments, it must be elected or appointed in accordance with constitutional requirements with reference to the election of assessors. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Hays, 118 Ind. 214; Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1; Houghton v. Austin, 47 Cal. 646. And see People v. Raymond, 37 N. Y. 428. But see Baird v. Williams, 49 Ark. 518, where it was held that a statute authorizing the appointment of boards of equalization, by the governor, with power to raise individual assessments, does not contravene a constitutional provision requiring assessors to be elected in each county.

2. See Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 243; People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; Richardson v. Boston, 148 Mass. 508; Covington v. Rockingham, 93 N. Car. 134; New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 31 La. Ann. 270; New Orleans City Gas Light Co. v. Board of Assessors, 31 La. Ann. 475; Louisiana Brewing Co. v. Board of Assessors, 41 La. Ann. 565; Gay v. Board of Assessors, 34 La. Ann. 370.

Under the New Jersey Law of 1876, p. 1163, the claim for deduction from taxation can be allowed only by the assessor of the place wherein the mortgaged lands are situate. State v. Jones, 40 N. J. L. 105.

In Maine, the power is conferred upon assessors, with appeal to the county commissioners. Bath v. Whitmore, 79 Me. 182. And see Stickney v. Bangor, 30 Me. 404. And in Illinois, the board is composed of the assessor, town clerk and supervisor, Hough v. Hastings, 18 Ill. 312; while in Oregon, it is the assessor and county clerk. Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v. Wasco County, 2 Oregon 206; Rhea v. Umatilla County, 2 Oregon 298.

In Massachusetts, it has been held that the assessors may abate a tax assessed by the assessors of the preceding year. Carleton v. Ashburnham, 102 Mass. 348. See also Hubbard v. Garfield, 102 Mass. 72.

The action of a board of review of which an assessor is a member, is not invalid on the ground that he is thereby made a judge in his own cause. Bratton v. Johnson Tp., 76 Wis. 430. And see Hough v. Hastings, 18 Ill.

312; Rhea v. Umatilla County, 2 Oregon 298.

In Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison County, 54 Tex. 119, the court refused to hold the action of a board of equalization void, upon which a deputy assessor, who was also a county commissioner, sat as a member, where the taxpayer failed to object to the deputy assessor constituting a portion of the board at the time of its action, and it was not shown that there was not a quorum without him.

1. See DuPage County v. Jenks, 65 Ill. 275; State v. Tax Collector, 39 La. Ann. 530.

The Louisiana statute constituting police juries "boards of review," does not create a board of equalization under the constitution, but confers power to correct assessments and valuations and equalize assessments on all properties of a like character only, and does not confer power to reduce the percentage of assessments by wards or otherwise. State v. Tax Collector, 39 La. Ann. 530.

A body having authority to exercise one of the functions only, does not lose it by assuming to exercise the other. Paul v. Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 35. Equalization and review are entirely different, and an exercise of the one function does not exhaust the power or bar a subsequent exercise of the other. State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev. 392.

2. Hamilton v. State, 3 Ind. 452; Orr v. State Board of Equalization (Idaho, 1891), 28 Pac. Rep. 416.

They have a special and limited jurisdiction which must be conferred in express terms. People v. Reynolds, 28 Cal. 113; Case v. Dean, 16 Mich. 12; People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450; Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v. Wasco County, 2 Oregon 206; Com. v. Luzerne County (Pa. 1888), 15 Atl. Rep. 548; Lackawanna County v. Com., 56 Pa. St. 477.

3. State v. Washoe County, 5 Nev. 317; State v. Central Pac. R. Co., 17

Nev. 259; Nixon v. Ruple, 30 N. J. L. 58.

Though where jurisdiction appears, all reasonable presumption will be made in favor of the regularity and validity of their acts until the contrary is shown. Tainter v. Lucas County, 29 Wis. 375; Wauwatosa Tp. v. Gunyon, 25 Wis. 271; Tierney v. Brown, 65 Miss. 563; 7 Am. St. Rep. 679; Hambleton v. Dempsey, 20 Ohio 168.

4. See State v. Hopper, 54 N. J. L. 544; Madison County v. Smith, 95 Ill. 328; State v. Allen, 43 Ill. 456; Orr v. State Board of Equalization (Idaho, 1891), 28 Pac. Rep. 416.

Under authority to the selectmen to change an assessment on appeal, it was held that the assessment could not be

raised. Leach v. Blakely, 34 Vt. 134. And see Lowell v. Middlesex County, 3 Allen (Mass.) 546.

Costs. In the absence of statutory provision, costs cannot be allowed to either party on an appeal for an abatement of taxes, Lowell v. Middlesex County, 6 Allen (Mass.) 131; Lowell v. Middlesex County, 3 Allen (Mass.) 546; though in some states, if it appears to the court that the assessors have acted with gross negligence, costs may be awarded against them. People v. Carter, 119 N. Y. 654. See also People v. Zoeller (Supreme Ct.), 15 N. Y. Supp. 684; Hall v. Greenwood County, 22 Kan. 37.

Interest. Nor can interest be allowed on the amount abated unless allowed by the statute. Lowell v. Middlesex County, 3 Allen (Mass.) 550. But in Pennsyl vania, interest may be allowed against the complaining taxpayer upon an unsuccessful appeal. Delaware Div. R. Co. v. Com., 50 Pa. St. 339; Com. v. Wyoming Valley Canal Co., 50 Pa. St. 410.

5. Hamilton v. State, 3 Ind. 452; Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112; People v. Parker, 117 N. Y. 86; Nova Ceasarea, etc., Lodge v. Haggerty (Ohio), 28 Wkly. Law Bull. 67.

In Hamilton v. State, 3 Ind. 452, it was held that there being no provision