State ex rel. Niewoehner v. Lutey

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:

(dissenting).

I think this case is not controlled by State ex rel. Goza v. District Court, 125 Mont. 296, 234 Pac. (2d) 463, because in that case the taxpayer did not furnish a sworn statement to the assessor. Here such a statement was furnished and the valuation was changed without notice to the taxpayer as provided in R. C. M. 1947, see. 84-4503. Here the tax on the increased value was and is void under the express command of section 84-4503.

In such a situation I think the rule stated in Barnard Realty Co. v. City of Butte, 50 Mont. 159, 145 Pac. 946, 949, applies. In…