Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Johnson County
Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Johnson County
Subsequent history: rev'd sub nom. Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota Cnty., 260 U.S. 441 (1923). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Rose, J.
The relief sought is a reduction, for the purposes of taxation, in the valuation of plaintiff’s personal property in Johnson county. In the year 1915 the property was valued at $172,225. Conceding that to be the actual value for the purposes of this proceeding, plaintiff asked the county board of equalization to reduce it to 75 per cent, of its actual value.- This demand for a reduction is based on the plea that taxing-officers in Johnson county and in the state at large conform to an established custom to value property generally for the purposes of taxation at 75 per cent, of its actual value. A mandatory statute in plain, unambiguous terms needing no interpretation requires the valuing of taxable property at its actual value and the assessing at 20 per cent, thereof. Rev. St. 1913, sec. 6300. No officer or custom óf officers can make 75 per cent, of actual value a lawful standard for the purposes of taxation under the present revenue law. If plaintiff has pleaded the facts as they exist, its remedy is the valuing of all taxable property at 100 *255 per cent, of its actual value, and not a reduction to 75 per cent, of the actual value of its own property.
The judgment of the district court conforms to this view of the law.
Affirmed.
Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.