State Ex Rel. Goza v. District Court of Eleventh Judicial Dist.

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:

(dissenting).

*300I do not agree that the Shulman Company has an adequate remedy at law under R. C. M. 1947, sec. 84-4502. That section was formerly section 2269, R. C. M. 1935. Section 2270, R. C. M. 1935, was designed to' offer the taxpayer a remedy for overvaluation of his property by paying the tax under protest and suing to recover it back. It has specific reference to property overvalued for tax purposes. But it applied only to such taxpayers who deliver to the assessor a sworn statement of their property, giving the estimated value thereof. Here it is alleged in the…