Western Carolina Power Co. v. Burke County

CONNOR, J. On its appeal to this Court, defendant assigns as error the refusal of the judge of the Superior Court to sustain its exception to the first conclusion of law made by the referee and fully set out in his report. This conclusion of law is as follows: “1. That the board of commissioners of Burke County, in discharging the duties and in exercising the powers conferred upon it by statute as a board of equalization and review (C. S., 7971(48) and C. S., 7971(88), had only such powers as were expressly or by implication conferred upon it by statute; and that it had no power either express or implied to make a horizontal reduction in the value of the real estate in the county as fixed by the local assessors.” This assignment of error cannot be sustained. There is no error in the referee’s first conclusion of law, or in the refusal of the judge to sustain defendant’s exception thereto. The board of commissioners of each county in this State is constituted by statute the board of equalization and review of the county, with respect to the assessment for taxation of all property, real and personal, subject to taxation by the county. The powers of the board are prescribed by statute; they are commensurate with the duty imposed *324 on the board by statute. It is the duty of the board 'to equalize in value all tracts or parcels of land, and all articles of personal property in the county to the end that each shall be assessed for taxation at its true value in money. Each tract or parcel of land in the county is valued in the first instance by the local assessors. Such valuation is subject to review by the board, which has the power to equalize the valuations made by the local assessors. In discharging this duty, the board is governed by certain rules prescribed by statute. These rules are as follows: “(1) They shall raise the valuation of such tracts or lots of real or articles of personal property, except such as are specifically exempt by law, as in their opinion have been returned below their true value, to such price or sum as they may believe to be the true value thereof. (2) They shall reduce the valuation of such tracts and lots, or articles of personal property as in their opinion have been returned above their true values, as compared with the average valuation of real and personal property of such county. In regard to real property, they shall have due regard to the relative situation, quality of soil, improvements, natural and artificial advantages possessed by each tract or lot.” The method adopted by the board of equalization and review of Burke County for the discharge of its duty with respect to the equalization of the values of real estate in said county, as shown by the resolution dated 15 September, 1927, was not in accordance with these statutory rules. The order for the horizontal reduction of the valuations made by the local assessors, was erroneous; it was not, however, void, for the county board of equalization and review had jurisdiction of the subject-matter with which it was dealing and of the parties interested therein. It also had the power to grant the relief contained in the order. Ellis v. Ellis, 190 N. C., 418, 130 S. E., 7. As the result of the order made by the board on 15 September, 1927, directing a horizontal reduction in the valuation of all real estate in the county as made by the local assessors, each tract or parcel of land in the county was assessed for taxation at its true value in money, as found by the board of equalization and review. Thus while the method adopted by the board was erroneous, the result accomplished by its order was within its power, as prescribed by statute. The order was subject to review by the State Board of Assessment, upon complaint by any taxpayer of Burke County, or upon its own initiative. C. S., 7971(5), subsection 3. Plaintiff’s assignments of error, chiefly relied upon on its appeal to this Court, are predicated upon its contention that the order of the board of equalization and review of Burke County, dated 15 September, 1927, *325 and resulting in tie horizontal reduction in the valuations of real estate in said county as made by the local assessors, is void, and not merely erroneous, and is therefore subject to collateral attack in this action. This contention cannot be sustained. The validity of this order was presented to and considered by the State Board of Assessment by plaintiff’s appeal. The holding of the State Board of Assessment that it could not interfere with said order, was erroneous, but binding on plaintiff and all other taxpayers, until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a hearing upon a writ of certiorari. Caldwell County v. Doughton, 195 N. C., 62, 141 S. E., 289. There is no error in the judgment. It is Affirmed.