fied circumstances, the existence of such circumstances is a condition precedent to its action. People v. Goldtree, 44 Cal. 323; Oregon, etc., Sav. Bank v. Catlin, 15 Oregon 342; McGee v. State, 32 Neb. 149; People v. Adams, 125 N. Y. 471; Adriance v. New York, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 224; Shove v. Manitowoc, 57 Wis. 5; Buttenuth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Ill. 535; 5 Am. St. Rep. 545.

Boards of review cannot assess additional taxes for previous years upon land, on a subsequent increased valuation, after the taxes for such years have been paid. Sudderth v. Brittain, 76 N. Car. 458.

1. Poppleton v. Yamhill County, 8 Oregon 337; Royce v. Jenney, 50 Iowa 676; King v. Parker, 73 Iowa 757. And see Cameron v. Cappeller, 41 Ohio St. 533; Parker v. Van Steenburg, 68 Iowa 174; Connor v. Waxahachie (Tex. 1889), 13 S. W. Rep. 30; Ferris v. Kimble, 75 Tex. 476.

Under the Iowa code, this may be done after the supervisors have fixed the rate for the year. Parker v. Van Steenburg, 68 Iowa 174.

When not authorized by statute, they have no such power. Williams Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Co., 42 Ind. 171; Pavey v. Greenburgh, etc., Turnpike Co., 42 Ind. 400; Manford v. Pleasant Grove, etc., Turnpike Co., 42 Ind. 293; Mercier v. New Orleans, 38 La. Ann. 958; Pacific R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17; Paul v. Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 35; Powder River Cattle Co. v. Custer County, 45 Fed. Rep. 323; Marsh v. Bowen, 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 1. The authority of a board, under the Wisconsin statute, to place upon the roll any property known by them to have been omitted, refers to tangible property and not to money or credits. Shove v. Manitowoc, 57 Wis. 5.

Under the Kansas statute, they may raise or lower the valuation placed upon personal property, but have no power to assess property not already listed. Pomeroy Coal Co. v. Emlen, 44 Kan. 117; McCrie v. Emlen, 44 Kan. 124.

2. Royce v. Jenney, 50 Iowa 676; Harris v. Fremont County, 63 Iowa 639; State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev. 392.

.

Under a power to correct erroneous assessments, the board may change an assessment by striking out the names of two non-resident executors, and allow it to stand against the resident executor. People v. Coleman, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 581.

In Illinois, they may give relief against the assessment of property which is exempt. Preston v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 625. But in Louisiana, tax arbitrators have no power to determine what is and what is not exempt. State v. Board of Assessors, 30 La. Ann. 261. And in Mississippi, they cannot place exempt property on the rolls. Meridian v. Phillips, 65 Miss. 362.

They cannot decide on the legality of a tax, Taylor Tp. v. Moore, 39 Iowa 605; the proper function of the board being to review the judgment exercised by the board of assessors in distributing the tax, not to judge of its legality. Matter of Lange, 85 N. Y. 307. And see State v. Dowling, 50 Mo. 134; Babcock v. Granville, 44 Vt. 325.

Power to "correct and add to the assessments returned," and make "addition to and corrections of the assessment list," does not authorize the board to remove names it may deem to be unlawfully thereon. And a statute prohibiting it from taking from the assessment list any name legally appearing thereon, does not by implication empower it to remove a name illegally appearing thereon. Biggs v. Buckingham (Del. 1892), 23 Atl. Rep. 858.

In Florida, the county commissioners have no power to raise or lower the valuation of railroad property assessed by the city comptroller. Pensacola v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 21 Fla. 492.

3. Wells v. State Board of Equalization, 56 Cal. 194; Pulaski County v. Board of Equalization Cases, 49 Árk. 518; State v. Board of Assessors, 30 La. Ann. 261; Collier v. Morrow, 90 Ga. 148; Fratz v. Mueller, 35 Ohio St. 397; State v. Randolph, 25 N. J. L. 427; Tweed v. Metcalf, 4 Mich. 579; Smith v. Jones County, 30 Iowa 531; Clark v. Norton, 49 N. Y. 245; Lawrence v. Janesville, 46 Wis. 364; Shove v. Manitowoc, 57 Wis. 5; McIntyre v. White Creek, 43 Wis. 630; State v. Gaylord, 73 Wis. 306; State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev. 392; Pomeroy Coal Co. v. Emlen, 44 Kan. 117; Gillett v.

Lyon County, 30 Kan. 166; Braden v. Union Trust Co., 25 Kan. 362; State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 120; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; Whilbeck v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 127 U. S. 193; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424; International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith County, 54 Tex. 1. And see Sioux City, etc., R. Co., v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 30; Humphreys v. Safe Deposit Co., 29 Ohio St. 608.

Where property is assessed for its full value, instead of for the value of the plaintiff's interest therein, it is an overvaluation to be remedied by an application for abatement. Fall v. Marysville, 19 Cal. 391.

Where provision is made for a reference to arbitrators when the taxpayer and assessor disagree, the arbitrators have power to fix the assessment at the true valuation, regardless of the amount returned by the taxpayer or fixed by the assessor. Collier v. Morrow, 90 Ga. 148. And see Pulaski County Board of Equalization Cases, 49 Ark. 518.

An increase in the assessment will, in the absence of proof, be presumed to have been made as a correction of the valuation, and not as a penalty which the board had no right to impose. Wauwatosa v. Gunyon, 25 Wis. 271.

On a petition for abatement, the assessment cannot be raised. Lowell v. Middlesex County, 3 Allen (Mass.) 546. And in Illinois, the county board, in counties under township organization, can only increase the valuation On property assessed after the time fixed for reviewing assessments by the assessor, town clerk, and supervisor. Coolbaugh v. Huck, 86 Ill. 600.

Under the Nevada statute, the board of county commissioners is empowered to modify, equalize, or discharge any supplemental assessments, upon proper application of the party in interest. State v. Ormsby County, 7 Nev. 392. And in New Hampshire, the selectmen may abate a tax for good cause shown. Gove v. Newton, 58 N. H. 359; Perry's Petition, 16 N. H. 44; Briggs' Petition, 29 N. H. 547; Manchester Mills v. Manchester, 57 N. H. 309.

Under the Massachusetts statutes,

county commissioners, on an appeal for an abatement of taxes, are required to estimate the property at its fair cash value, irrespective of the value placed by the assessors upon similar property in the same district. Lowell v. Middlesex County, 152 Mass. 372.

In Indiana, an assessment cannot be increased by the auditor, even though the undervaluation be fraudulent. Williams v. Segur, 106 Ind. 368. And in Florida, boards of county commissioners are without power to raise or lower the valuation of railroad property assessed by the state comptroller. Pensacola v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 21 Fla. 492.

Power to remit or reduce taxes gives no authority to exempt from taxation property which under the law is not exempt. People v. Campbell, 93 N. Y. 196.

Erroneous Penalties.-In case of erroneous imposition of the "four-fold tax," or any other irregularity, the court will abate as much as equity requires, leaving the rest in force. Perry's Petition, 16 N. H. 44; Cocheco Mfg. Co. v. Stafford, 51 N. HI. 455. And see Walker v. Cochran, 8 N. H. 166.

Poverty and inability to pay have been held to constitute a proper ground for abatement by the selectmen. Briggs' Petition, 29 N. H. 547.

1. See Poppleton v. Yamhill County, 8 Oregon 337; Weaver v. State, 39 Ala. 535; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424; Smith v. Jones County, 30 Iowa 531; King v. Parker, 73 Iowa 757; Parker v. Van Steenburg, 68 Iowa 174; State v. Randolph, 25 N. J. L. 427; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 120; International, etc., R. Co. v. Smith County, 54 Tex. 1; State v. Myers, 52 Wis. 628; Briggs' Petition, 29 N. H. 547; Cocheco Mfg. Co. v. Strafford, 51 N. H. 455; Melvin v. Weare, 56 N. H. 436; Carpenter v. Dallon, 58 N. H. 615.

66

Under a provision that if it shall appear to the board of review that there are 'any lands, lots, or property not assessed, said board shall make the proper corrections," it has power to raise an assessment by adding property not included therein. Poppleton v. Yamhill County, 8 Oregon 337.

The action of commissioners of

appeal in changing an assessment by city lots to an assessment by the acre, without changing the value of the entire tract, does not invalidate the assessment. State v. Van Horn, 40 N. J. L. 143.

1. Patten v. Green, 13 Cal. 325; Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equalization, 82 Cal. 214; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424; People v. Ward, 105 Ill. 620; South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo County, 7 Neb. 253; Alleghany County v. New York Min. Co., 76 Md. 549; State v. Parker, 34 N. J. L. 49; State v. Carragan, 37 N. J. L. 264; State v. Harrison, 39 N. J. L. 51; Auer v. Dubuque, 65 Iowa 650; Avery v. East Saginaw, 44 Mich. 587; Thomas v. Gain, 35 Mich. 155; 24 Am. Rep. 535; Dool v. Cassopolis, 42 Mich. 547; Maurer v. Cliff, 94 Mich. 194; Relfe v. Columbia L. Ins. Co., 11 Mo. App. 374; Scott v. Brackett, 89 Ind. 413; Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 506; Albany City Nat. Bank. v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. (U. S.) 179; Exchange Bank Tax Cases, 21 Fed. Rep. 99; Dean v. Aiken, 48 Vt. 541; Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Brennan, 69 Miss. 103; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Russell, 8 Kan. 558; Gibbons v. Adamson, 44 Kan. 203; New Orleans v. St. Romes, 28 La. Ann. 17; New Orleans v. Stewart, 28 La. Ann. 180. But see Collier v. Morrow, 90 Ga. 148.

A statute conferring power upon a tribunal to finally dispose of the property rights of an individual, which fails to provide for notice, denies to the citizen due process of law and is unconstitutional. Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. I.

The legislature may prescribe the form of notice and manner of giving it, but cannot dispense with notice altogether. Scott v. Toledo, etc., R. Co., 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 538. And a statutory provision that no person shall be heard to question the equalization of an assessment, unless he shall have first made such objection before the board of review, is valid only when reasonable time and opportunity is

afforded for making such objection. Bratton v. Johnson Tp., 76 Wis. 430.

But the notice of a proposed increase in an assessment need not specify the property to be added thereto. Poppleton v. Yamhill County, 18 Oregon 377.

In McIntyre v. White Creek, 43 Wis. 620, it was held to be the duty of the town board of review to notify a resident taxpayer before increasing the assessor's valuation of his property; but that a failure to do so is a mere irregularity not available to avoid the tax without proof of substantial injustice.

The giving of an inventory by a taxpayer is not an equivalent for a notice to him of the assessment, and the time and place for hearing complaints, and he is entitled to such notice, even though he willfully refuses to make an inventory. Brush v. Buker, 56 Vt. 143.

What Constitutes Raising. Where the assessor makes valuations in a memorandum book, and after consultation with the other members of the board, raises them on the final assessment, it has been held not such a raising of valuation as will require a notice to be given the owners. Kissimmee City v. Cannon, 26 Fla. 3. And adding omitted property to the rolls is not a raising of the assessment within a statute requiring a board of equalization to give notice of the raising of an assessment. Jackson v. Chizum, 78 Iowa 209; Kiehl v. Chizum, 78 Iowa 213.

an

Joint or Common Owners.-In Perkins v. Zumstein, 4 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 371, it was held that notice of intent to increase a valuation, served on owner of an undivided interest, will not bind any of the other owners nor authorize the board to increase the valuation even as against the one served. 2. Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 30; Hough v. Hastings, 18 IIl. 312; Alleghany County v. New York R. Co., 76

Md. 549.

Though the notice be in due form, if the board fails to meet at the time fixed, the levy is invalid. Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112; Nashville v. Weiser, 54 Ill. 246. And a taxpayer has the right to assume that the board

will remain in session for the statutory time, and to arrange to be present on any day he may choose. Caledonia Tp. v. Rose, 94 Mich. 216. But a postponement at the instance of the taxpayer will not affect the action of the board. Faribault Water Works Co. v. Rice County, 44 Minn. 12.

The notice will not justify the alteration of one class of assessments when it states an intention to correct errors in another class only. Dool v. Cassopolis, 42 Mich. 547.

Notice of Reduction Not Necessary.But it is not necessary to give formal notice of the reduction of a tax before proceeding to collect it. Com. 7. New England Slate Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 391.

1. Nashville v. Weiser, 54 Ill. 245; Alleghany County v. New York Min. Co., 76 Md. 549; Cleveland County v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 86 N. Car. 541. Service on the party's tenant is not sufficient. State v. Drake, 33 N. J. L. 194.

Notice posted at the city hall complies with a statute requiring "legal notice." Brunswick v. Finney, 54 Ga. 317. And it may be given by mail. Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equalization, 82 Cal. 214.

A newspaper advertisement signed by the city treasurer who is only an ex officio member of the board, is not a notice by the board. Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112.

In Missouri, it is not required that an actual personal notice be given. State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450. But in Indiana, it has been held that a general notice to the public by publication or posting, is not such notice to an individual taxpayer as is required to authorize a change in the valuation of his property. Kuntz v. Sumption, 117 Ind. 1. In New Jersey, where notice is required and has not been given, the assessment will be reduced to the valuation made by the assessor, unless evidence is taken to show its insufficiency, and application is made under the act of 1881 to increase it, State v. Love, 47 N. J. L. 436; and an injunction will lie against the collection of the excess. Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Brennan, 69 Miss. 103.

Computation of Time.-When notice is given to appear within a certain

time, the time for appearance is to be computed as including the day of notice. Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equalization, 82 Cal. 214.

Proof of Notice.-The testimony of the assessor that notice was duly posted, and of a person employed in his office that during that time he posted such notice, coupled with the presumption that the officers did their duty, is sufficient to sustain a finding that notice was posted. Oswego County v. Betts, 6 N. Y. Supp. 934; 53 Hun (N. Y.) 638.

Where no written return or special mode of proof of service of the notice is prescribed, the fact of service by mail may be established by any proper legal testimony, either oral or in writing; and the oral evidence of the clerk that notice was duly mailed is sufficient to establish the fact. Hagenmeyer v. Board of Equalization, 82 Cal. 214.

The absence of notice cannot be proved unless alleged. King v. Parker, 73 Iowa 757.

In Stell v. Watson (Ark. 1889), 11 S. W. Rep. 822, it was held that failure to give notice required by statute, does not affect the jurisdiction of the board. And in Beers v. People, 83 Ill. 488, it was held that notice need not be given for the correction of any error or informality not affecting the substantial justice of the tax itself. See also Scammon v. Chicago, 44 Ill. 269; State v. Love, 49 N. J. L. 235, aff'g 47 N. J. L. 436; Marsh v. Clark County, 42 Wis. 502; McIntyre v. White Creek, 43 Wis. 620.

But in the absence of provision as to its form and manner of service, any reasonable notice is sufficient. See Farmers', etc., Bank v. Board of Equalization, 97 Cal. 318; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 62 Cal. 69; Faribault Water Works Co. v. Rice County, 44 Minn. 12; State v. Board of Equalization, 108 Mo. 235; State Kearney Tp. (N. J. 1892). 25 Atl. Rep. 327; Black v. McGonigle, 103 Mo. 192; Stearns v. Miller, 25 Vt. 20.

v.

In People v. Tax Comr's, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 235, a notice given to a person named as executor in a will, two days before the probate of the will, was held to have been properly given.

In Smith v. Hard, 61 Vt. 469, it was held that a notice of the day and place of the meeting of a board of equaliza

tion is sufficient, though it does not give the hour, in the absence of evidence that a person complaining has suffered injury by the omission.

Notice after change is sufficient if opportunity to be heard and obtain a reinstallment of the original assessment is then given. Rockafellow v.

Board of Equalization, 77 Iowa 493. 1. In the absence of statutory provision as to the particular mode of giving it. State v. Runyon, 41 N. J. L. 98; Slaughter v. Louisville, 89 Ky. 112. And see Brunswick v. Finney, 54 Ga. 317; State v. Jersey City, 25 N. J. L. 309; State v. Jersey City, 28 N. J. L. 500.

Such Notice Constitutional-Provision for such notice is constitutional. Lamb v. Connolly, 122 N. Y. 531; Fithian v. Wheeler, 125 N. Y. 696; Terrel v. Wheeler, 123 N. Y. 76; Matter of De Peyster, 80 N. Y. 565; Wabash Eastern R. Co. v. Drainage Dist., 134 Ill. 384. And see Serrill v. New Orleans, 27 La. Ann. 520.

Under statutes requiring notice to non-resident landowners by publication in some newspaper, the notice need not address the landowner by name, but may simply describe the land, and an error in the number designating the town is fatal. Miller v. Graham, 17 Ohio St. 1.

2. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 385; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; Hyland v. Brazil, etc., Coal Co., 128 Ind. 335; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 625; Gillett v. Lyon County, 30 Kan. 166; Spalding v. Hill, 86 Ky. 656; Methodist Protestant Church v. Baltimore, 6 Gill (Md.) 391; O'Neal v. Virginia, etc., Bridge Co., 18 Md. 26; 79 Am. Dec. 669; Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 30; People v. Lothrop, 3 Colo. 428; Nixon v. Ruple, 30 N. J. L. 58; State v. Runyon, 41 N. J. L. 98; St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 Minn. 258; State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 120; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Worthen, 52 Ark. 529; Hambleton v. Dempsey, 20 Ohio 168; Snell v. Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa 564; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 513; Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, 133 Ind. 609; Smith v. Rude, etc., Mfg. Co., 131 Índ. 150. And see

But

Pulaski County Board of Equalization Cases, 49 Ark. 518; Evans v. Gage, I Ill. App. 202; Nashville v. Weiser, 54 Ill. 245; Oregon, etc., R. Co. v. Lane County (Oregon, 1893), 31 Pac. Rep. 964; Glenn v. Raine (Ohio), 30 Wkly. Law Bull. 30; In re McLean (Supreme Ct.),6 N. Y. Supp. 230.

In such case, the ignorance of an assessment made against a taxpayer does not excuse him for failure to appear before the board to have it corrected, if erroneous. Nugent v. Bates, 51 Iowa 77; 32 Am. Rep. 117.

Many cases hold that such provisions are sufficient to authorize the board either to raise, lower, or otherwise alter assessments as it may deem just, without further notice. State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450; Baird v. Williams, 49 Ark. 518; Collier v. Morrow, 90 Ga. 148; Scammon v. Chicago, 44 Ill. 269; Gillett v. Lyon County, 30 Kan. 166; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; Hallo v. Helmer, 12 Neb. 87; Suydam v. Merrick County, 19 Neb. 155. And see State v. Bonnell, 49 N. J. L. 317; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575.

But some of the states have adopted the rule that additions cannot be made or valuations increased, without direct notice to the person whose rights and interests are thereby affected. Sioux City, etc., R. Co. v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 30; South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo County, 7 Neb. 253; Patten v. Green, 13 Cal. 325; Glassford v. Dorsey, 2 Ill. App. 521; Cleghorn v. Postlewait, 43 Ill. 428; Darling v. Gunn, 50 Ill. 424; McConkey v. Smith, 73 Ill. 313; Coolbaugh v. Huck, 86 Ill. 600; Henkle v. Keota, 68 Iowa 334; Leavenworth County v. Lang, 8 Kan. 284; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Russell, 8 Kan. 558; Allegany County v. Union Min. Co., 61 Md. 545; Relfe v. Columbia L. Ins. Co., 11 Mo. App. 374; State v. Northern Belle Mill, etc., Co., 12 Nev. 89; State v. New Lindell Hotel Co., 9 Mo. App. 450; Apgar v. Hayward, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 357; Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v. Wasco County, 2 Oregon 206; Avant v. Flynn (S. Dak. 1891), 49 N. W. Rep. 15; Matheson v. Mazomanie, 20 Wis. 191; Lawrence v. Janesville, 46 Wis. 364. And see State v. Kearney Tp. (N. J. 1892), 25 Atl. Rep. 327.