Stanley v. Supervisors of Albany, 121 U.
S. 535, affirmed to the point that a party who feels
himself aggrieved by overvaluation of his property for purposes of
taxation, and does not resort to the tribunal created by the state
for correction of errors in assessments before levy of the tax,
cannot maintain an action at law to recover the excess of taxes
paid beyond what should have been levied on a just valuation. His
remedy is in equity to enjoin the collection of the illegal excess
upon payment or tender of the amount due upon what is admitted to
be a just valuation.
The mode in which property shall be appraised, by whom and when
that shall be done, what certificate of their action shall be
furnished by the board which does it, and when parties may be heard
for the correction of errors are all matters within legislative
discretion, and it is within the power of a state legislature to
cure an omission or a defective performance of such of the acts
required by law to be performed by local boards in the assessment
of taxes as could have been in the first place omitted from the
requirements of the statute or which might have been required to be
done at another time than that named in it, provided always that
intervening rights are not impaired.
The statute passed by the Legislature of New York April 30,
1883, to legalize and confirm the assessments in Albany for the
years 1876, 1877, and
Page 122 U. S. 155
1878 was not in conflict with the acts of Congress respecting
the taxation of shares of stock in national banks, and was a valid
exercise of the power of the legislature to cure irregularities in
assessments.
This was an action to recover the amount of certain taxes
alleged to have been illegally collected from the plaintiff and
others on sundry shares of stock held by them in the National
Albany Exchange Bank, in the City of Albany, New York and paid into
the treasury of the county. The stockholders other than the
plaintiff assigned to him their respective claims before its
commencement. Their demands were originally embraced in an action
brought by one Edward N. Stanley against the Board of Supervisors,
he being at the time assignee of their claims. In that action,
judgment was recovered by him. The case being brought to this
Court, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded with leave
to the court below, in its discretion, to hear evidence upon the
point whether the shares were habitually and intentionally assessed
higher in proportion to their actual value than other money ed
capital generally, and if necessary to allow an amendment of the
pleadings that the point might be properly presented.
Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305.
When the case was remanded, on application to the court below, all
the counts of the complaint, except the fourth, were amended.
Subsequently, however, Stanley discontinued the action as to the
claim for the taxes assessed and collected for the years 1876,
1877, and 1878. The plaintiff then took an assignment of the claim
for those taxes from Stanley and commenced the present action. He
contended that the assessment for those years upon the shares of
the stock of the bank was illegal on these grounds:
1st. Because it was not made within the period required by law,
which was before the first of September of each year, but after
that date.
2d. Because it was not accompanied by the oath of the assessors
that it had been made at the full and true value of the shares,
subject only to certain specified deductions allowed by law.
3d. Because it was higher, in proportion to the actual value
Page 122 U. S. 156
of the shares, than the assessment of other moneyed capital in
the hands of individual citizens of the state was to its actual
value.
The defendant answered these grounds by a general denial and by
setting up an act of the Legislature of New York, passed April 30,
1883, legalizing and confirming the assessment.
*
Page 122 U. S. 157
The issues were tried by the court without the intervention of a
jury by consent of parties. The court found the facts as admitted
by the pleadings and by stipulation of the parties, from which it
appeared, among other things, that no entry of any assessment of
the shares of the stockholders of the bank was made upon the
assessment roll of 1876, 1877, and 1878 until after the 1st day of
September of those years, and after the time provided by law for
revising and correcting the assessment; that the oath of the
assessors, annexed to the assessment of each year, was defective in
its averment respecting the estimated value of the real estate
assessed, but was correct in its averment of the estimated value of
the personal property; that there were several banks, state and
national, located in the City of Albany, and that the actual value
of their shares during those years, with one exception, was above
par, varying in that respect from ten to over one hundred percent,
and yet the value of all of them was assessed at par; that the
actual value of shares in the National Albany Exchange Bank was
from twenty-five to thirty percent above par; that the assessment
of the shares of some of the other banks was higher and of some of
them lower than this figure, and that the assessment at par was not
made by the assessors with the intent of discriminating against the
holders of national bank
Page 122 U. S. 158
shares, or in favor of the holders of state bank shares, or
other moneyed capital. As a conclusion of law, the court found that
the assessments were illegal because not made in conformity with
the laws of the state, but that they were legalized and confirmed
by the act of its legislature of April 30, 1883, and that they were
not in violation of any law of the United States. 22 Blatchford
302. Judgment was accordingly rendered for the defendant, and the
plaintiff brought the case here for review.
Page 122 U. S. 162
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
It may be conceded that the assessment of the shares of the
National Albany Exchange Bank was in some instances higher, in
proportion to their actual value, than the assessment of some other
moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens was to its
actual value; but, as seen from the findings, such discrimination
was not designed by the assessors. It is so stipulated by the
parties. Whatever discrimination in such instances may have existed
arose from the difficulty of devising any other mode than the one
adopted which would work out greater equality and uniformity in the
valuation of different kinds of moneyed capital. There was no proof
as to the assessment of any moneyed capital except shares of other
banks, state or national. The value of shares in some of these
banks was higher, in some lower, than that of the
Page 122 U. S. 163
shares of the National Albany Exchange Bank. The method adopted
of assessing all shares at par was generally satisfactory to the
owners of the national bank stock in the City of Albany, with the
exception of a few stockholders in the National Albany Exchange
Bank. Considering the nature of the property and the frequent
fluctuations in value to which it is subject, the method applied to
all banks, state and national, came, as we said in the recent case
of Stanley against the same defendants, as nearly as practicable to
securing between them equality and uniformity of taxation. All the
banks, state and national, being thus placed, as respects taxation,
upon the same footing, the method could not be considered as
adopted in hostility to any of them. If it sometimes led to
undervaluation of the shares of national banks, the holders could
not complain. If it sometimes led to overvaluation of the shares,
the aggrieved party could obtain relief by pursuing the course
pointed out by the statute for its correction unless, as asserted,
this course was not, in the years mentioned, available to the
plaintiff and the stockholders whose interests were assigned to
him, because their names were not placed on the assessment roll
until the time provided by law for revising and correcting the
assessment had passed. If that course was thus cut off, they could
have resorted to a court of equity to enjoin the collection of the
illegal excess upon payment or tender of the amount due upon what
they admitted to be a just valuation. We have considered this
subject so fully in the recent case of Stanley against these same
defendants,
121 U. S. 121 U.S.
535, to which we refer, that it is unnecessary to pursue it
further.
The irregularities in the assessment for the years 1876, 1877,
and 1878, in that no entry of any assessment of the shares of the
plaintiff, and of the stockholders whose claims were assigned to
him, was made on the assessment roll of those years until after the
first of September and after the time for revising and correcting
the assessment had passed, and in the defect of the oath annexed in
its averment as to the estimate of the value of real estate, were,
in our judgment, cured by the validating Act of April 30, 1883. The
power of taxation
Page 122 U. S. 164
vested in the legislature is, with some exceptions, limited only
by constitutional provisions designed to secure equality and
uniformity in the assessment. The mode in which the property shall
be appraised, by whom its appraisement shall be made, the time
within which it shall be done, what certificate of their action
shall be furnished, and when parties shall be heard for the
correction of errors are matters resting in its discretion. Where
directions upon the subject might originally have been dispensed
with or executed at another time, irregularities arising from
neglect to follow them may be remedied by the legislature unless
its action in this respect is restrained by constitutional
provisions prohibiting retrospective legislation. It is only
necessary, therefore, in any case, to consider whether the
assessment could have been ordered originally without requiring the
proceedings the omission or defective performance of which is
complained of, or without requiring them within the time
designated. If they were not essential to any valid assessment, and
therefore might have been omitted or performed at another time,
their omission or defective performance may be cured by the same
authority which directed them, provided always that intervening
rights are not impaired. Such is the conclusion of numerous
adjudications by the state courts upon the effect of curative acts,
and of this Court in
Mattingly v. District of Columbia,
97 U. S. 687,
97 U. S. 690.
Hart v. Henderson, 17 Mich. 218;
Musselman v.
Logansport, 29 Ind. 533;
Grim v. Weissenberg School
District, 57 Penn.St. 433. The completion of the assessment
roll in the case at bar before the first of September in the years
mentioned, and the form of the oath annexed, were not so vital to
the assessment itself as necessarily to render the defect arising
from a later return or a deficient oath incurable. The completion
of the assessment roll by that date was deemed essential by the
court below because the law required the assessors forthwith to
cause notices to be published in three of the public newspapers of
the city for twenty days, specifying a day at their expiration when
they would meet, and remain in session five days for the purpose of
reviewing their assessments on the application of anyone aggrieved.
The requirement
Page 122 U. S. 165
was designed to afford taxpayers whose names were on the roll an
opportunity for the examination and correction of the assessment of
their property. The assessment could not stand if they were
deprived of that opportunity. But it is not perceived why it might
not be legalized and confirmed by the legislature giving to them
such opportunity after the time originally designated had expired.
No just right of the taxpayer would thereby be defeated.
The assessment of the shares of the bank for the years 1876,
1877, and 1878 was held invalid for the reason stated, under the
laws of the state, although from what we have said it would not be
open to objection as being in conflict with the act of Congress. It
is only in view of its invalidity for want of conformity to the
laws of the state that the validating act becomes of importance.
That act declares that the assessments contained in the assessment
rolls of the wards of the city for the above years are
"in all things legalized and confirmed, subject to the rights of
the shareholders or their personal representatives, in national or
state banks which were located in said city during those years, and
the assessments against whom, by reason of their ownership of such
shares, were collected by process of law, to claim a deduction from
or cancellation of such assessments."
It required the assessors, within ten days after the passage of
the act, to publish in the official papers of the city daily for
three weeks, Sundays and holidays excepted, a notice to the
stockholders that the assessors would be in attendance at their
office in Albany for three weeks subsequent to the last day of
publication of the notice, and hear applications for the deduction
from the assessments of any amount which such stockholders or their
personal representatives would have been entitled to deduct under
the law as it existed in the year when the assessment was placed on
the roll, had such application then been made. And the act provided
that such shareholders, or anyone representing them, might appear
before the assessors and apply for a deduction or cancellation of
the assessment upon any ground which would have been a legal one
when the assessment was placed on the roll, and the assessors were
empowered
Page 122 U. S. 166
to grant such reduction or cancellation as the shareholders
would have been legally entitled to at that time. The act also made
provision for the collection and payment to the parties of the
amount found to be due them, with interest.
It is difficult to see on what plausible ground the validity of
this act can be questioned unless the power of the legislature to
cure by legislative act any irregularities of the assessment be
denied. Every right of the shareholder who had paid taxes on the
assessment -- and it does not appear that there were any others --
was secured. He could present any claim he might have for a
reduction or cancellation of the assessment, and be heard
respecting it. He occupied the same position he would have held if
the assessment of his shares had been placed on the assessment roll
within the time required -- that is, before the first of September
-- and the oath annexed had been without any fault or omission in
its averments. The plaintiff and the other shareholders were bound,
as owners of property, to bear their just proportion of the public
burdens, and if, in ascertaining what that proportion should be,
some steps in the proceeding were omitted which invalidated the
assessment, it would seem but just that the defect should be cured,
if practicable, and the shareholders not be allowed to escape
taxation, and thus entail the burden they should bear upon other
taxpayers of the community. After the validating act was passed,
the plaintiff applied to the assessors for the cancellation of the
assessment for the years 1876, 1877, and 1878 or a reduction from
the amount assessed. The assessors refused to cancel the
assessments, but they allowed a reduction from them to the amount
of $2,071.66, which was paid to him.
If follows from the views expressed that
The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed, and it
is so ordered.
* The following is a copy of the provisions of that act found in
the Session Laws of 1883 at 532, omitting the title and enacting
clause.
"SECTION 1. The assessments contained in the assessment rolls of
the respective wards of the City of Albany for the years eighteen
hundred and seventy-six, eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, and
eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, and which are now on file in
the office of the receiver of taxes of the city, are hereby in all
things legalized and confirmed, subject to the rights of the
shareholders or their personal representatives in national or state
banks which were located in said city during those years, and the
assessments against whom, by reason of their ownership of such
shares, were collected by process of law, to claim a deduction from
or cancellation of such assessments as provided for in the next
section."
"§ 2. Within ten days after the passage of this act, the
assessors of the City of Albany shall publish a notice subscribed
by them, in the official papers of the city, daily, Sundays and
holidays excepted, for three weeks, notifying all of such above
described shareholders that at the office of such assessors in the
City of Albany for three weeks subsequent to the last day of the
publication of such notice, Sundays and holidays excepted, the
assessors will be in attendance and will hear any application that
may be made to them for the purpose of deducting from the
assessments aforesaid any amount which such shareholder or his
personal representative would have been entitled to deduct under
the law as it existed in the year when the assessment was placed in
the roll, had such application then been made."
"§ 3. During the time above named, any of such above described
shareholders assessed in any of such rolls, or anyone representing
them, may appear before such assessors and make application to have
a reduction or cancellation of such assessment upon any ground
which would have been a legal ground at the time when such
assessment was placed in the roll, and upon the facts as they
existed at the time when such assessment was placed in such roll.
The assessors shall have power to administer an oath to the
applicant, and, after an examination of him upon the material facts
of such application, shall grant to him such deduction from or
cancellation of the assessment in question as he would have been
legally entitled to upon the facts as they existed at the time when
the assessment to reduce or cancel which the application is made
was placed in the roll."
"§ 4. After the expiration of the time for hearing applications,
the assessors, or a majority of them, shall sign a certificate
stating the name of the shareholder or his personal representative,
who is entitled to a deduction from the amount contained in the
assessment roll, and the amount of such deduction, and the amount
of the interest thereon from the fifteenth day of December of the
year to which the deduction applies up to the first day of
February, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, and the certificate
shall be made up in duplicate, and one of them sent to the board of
supervisors of the county at its fall session in eighteen hundred
and eighty-three, and the other to the county treasurer."
"§ 5. The board of supervisors shall at such session add to the
amount to be raised by tax for county purposes the total amount
named in such certificate for the principal and interest of such
deduction therein named, and such sum shall he levied, assessed,
and collected in the same way as other taxes for county purposes
and paid to the county treasurer with other county funds."
"§ 6. The county treasurer, upon receipt of the moneys raised by
tax, shall pay to the parties named in such certificate seat him by
the assessors, the amount therein specified as clue such
persons."
