Opinion
No. 31428
Decided June 2, 1948.
Prohibition — Writ not issued to prevent board of revision from considering complaints — Real property owners claim personal property included in valuation or assessment.
Writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent a board of revision from considering complaints of owners of real property on the ground that the value of personal property is or may be included in the valuation or assessment of which complaint is made. ( Standard Oil Co. v. Zangerle, County Aud., 133 Ohio St. 33, Approved and followed.)
IN PROHIBITION.
Relator was created pursuant to the Conservancy Act of Ohio (Section 6828-1 et seq., General Code).
The respondents constitute the Franklin County Board of Revision (Section 5580, General Code).
Relator seeks a writ to prohibit the respondent board from assuming any jurisdiction of matters contained in complaints filed with respondent by The Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company, The Norfolk Western Railway Company, The Baltimore Ohio Railroad Company, The Union Depot Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company and The New York Central Railroad Company, and avers that the complaints allege that the respective complainants are aggrieved by the inclusion of the value of personal property in the valuation of the property of complainants against which the assessment for the purpose of relator has been extended; that the assessment is applicable only to the real property of the complainants located in Franklin county; and that complainants further ask that, for the purposes of the Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District, the valuations be corrected and reduced to the value of the real estate used in operations and buildings and structures and that no part of the personal property of the railroad companies be included in the valuation subject to such special assessment.
The prayer of the petition reads:
"Wherefore, relator prays that an alternative writ of prohibition be immediately issued out of this court prohibiting and restraining said respondents as members of the Franklin County Board of Revision, from assuming any jurisdiction of the matters contained in said 'Complaints as to Assessment of Real Property' filed by said railroad and depot utility companies, and prohibiting said respondents, members of the said Board of Revision, from making any determination under said complaints, and that upon final hearing this court find the respondents are without jurisdiction to entertain and consider said complaints and all actions taken pursuant thereto be declared void, and that thereupon a peremptory and final writ of prohibition may issue against respondents, and for such other and further relief to which relator may be entitled."
Respondent demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not state facts which show a cause of action.
Mr. Allen I. Pretzman and Mr. E.W. Dillon, for relator.
Mr. Ralph J. Bartlett, prosecuting attorney, Mr. David B. Sharp and Mr. Robert P. Barnhart, for respondents.
Assuming, but not deciding, that relator is authorized to bring the instant action, we recognize that relator is concerned in the matters pending before respondent by reason of the special assessment of 3/10 of a mill levied by relator on the assessed valuation of the property of its district. However, relator is not a party to any of the proceedings pending before respondent, which it seeks to prohibit. None of the complainants before the respondent are parties to the instant proceeding.
The petition also contains the allegation that respondent "will, unless prohibited by this Honorable Court, proceed to make a determination under said complaints requiring a determination of the question as to what property is subject to said special assessment under the terms and provisions of G. C. 6828-1, although without legal jurisdiction and authority in the premises, to the irreparable injury of relator, and for which it has no adequate remedy either at law or in equity, by way of appeal, or otherwise."
There is no allegation in the petition that respondent has taken any action under Section 6828-1, General Code, or any other statute. There is no allegation of irreparable injury to relator threatened. Therefore, the single question before us is whether the respondent has jurisdiction.
Section 5596, General Code, provides in part as follows:
"The county board of revision shall in all respects be governed by the laws respecting the valuation of real property and shall make no change of any valuation except in accordance with such laws."
The petition contains no allegation either that the respondent has violated or threatens to violate the foregoing provision of Section 5596, General Code. All that is alleged is that respondent has assumed jurisdiction of the complaints.
Section 5597, General Code, provides:
"It shall be the duty of the board of revision to hear complaints relating to the valuation or assessment of real property as the same appears upon the tax duplicate of the then current year, and it shall investigate all such complaints and may increase or decrease any such valuation or correct any assessment complained of, or it may order a reassessment by the original assessing officer."
In the case of Standard Oil Co. v. Zangerle, County Aud., 133 Ohio St. 33, 11 N.E.2d 242, it was held:
"Where a complaint filed under Section 5609, General Code (108 Ohio Laws, pt. 1, 560), sets forth that real estate has been overvalued or illegally valued because personal property has been improperly included in the valuation as real estate, the County Board of Revision, on hearing the complaint, and the Tax Commission of Ohio, on appeal, have power to classify the property in determining the true value of the real estate and may exclude from the valuation so much of the property as, under the law and the evidence, is found to be personal property."
Therefore, respondent's demurrer to relator's petition should be and hereby is sustained and relator not desiring to plead further, the writ is denied.
Demurrer sustained and writ denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN, SOHNGEN and STEWART, JJ., concur.