State ex rel. Hasbrook v. Lewis, Auditor. Under means of information they deem necessary. this rule it would clearly be within their province to consider the tax duplicate of 1899, as well as any other evidence or information they thought proper or necessary. Nova Ceasarea, etc., Lodge v. Hagerty, 11 Dec. (Re.)595; 28 Bull., 67; Railway Co. v. Comrs. Riley Co., 20 Kans., 141; Knight v. Thomas, 45 Atlantic, 499, 93 Me., 494; Brown v. Cinida, 79 N. W. Rep., 216 (Wis., 1899); State v. Duluth Gas & Water Co., 78 N. W. Rep., 1032; State of Nevada, ex rel., v. Co. Comrs., 14 Nev., 140; Knapp v. Heller, 32 Wis., 467. But if relator should not secure the relief to which he is entitled by the final action of the state board and the board of revision, he still has a right to appeal to the courts under provisions of Sec. 5848, Revised Statutes, which furnishes full opportunity for an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. With this right to relief by injunction subsisting, Sec. 6744, Revised Statutes, forbids the issue of a writ of mandamus. 3. A writ of mandamus can only be issued on the information of a party beneficially interested. The petition in each of these cases alleges that the relator is the owner of real estate and a taxpayer in Hamilton county, but there is no allegation that the relator is a citizen or an elector of that county. And while he states that the question involved is one of general interest of many persons similarly situated, he does not say he sues in their behalf as under Sec. 5008, Revised Statutes. State ex rel v. Henderson, 38 Ohio St., 644. While the petition alleges that the question involved in this action is one of common or general interest of many who are similarly situated, and who are very numerous, and that it is impracticable to bring State ex rel. Hasbrook v. Lewis, Auditor. them before the court, relator appears in behalf of his private right, he has made no demand upon any public officer, or made any attempt to bring this proceeding except in his private capacity, and while other taxpayers might have similar complaints as against valuations of their property, it does not follow that they have a common interest in this proceeding. Weber v. Dillon, 54 Pac. Rep., 894 (Oklahoma, 1896). Mandamus will not issue upon the information of a private citizen to secure the enforcement of a purely public duty. State ex rel. Clark v. Murphy, 2 Cire. Dec., 190; 3 C. C. R., 332; 25 Maine, 291; Williams v. Comrs. Lincoln Co., 35 Me., 345; People ex rel. Drake v. University of Michigan, 4 Mich., 98; Heffner v. Com. ex rel. Kline, 28 Pa. St., 108. BURKET, J. When stripped of their general charges of illegality and violation of statutes, the petitions in substance aver that the decennial board of equalization largely increased the amount of the total returns made by the district assessors, both in the city and county, and that the county auditor has certified the amounts of the returns so made by the district as sessors, together with the increase made by the boards of equalization, to the auditor of state, so that the auditor of state has both the amounts as returned by the district assessors, and the increase added by the boards of equalization, and the totals of both added together; and the prayers of the petitions are, that the county auditor be compelled to make out and transmit to the auditor of state the amounts returned by the district assessors, without the additions made thereto by the decennial boards of equalization. It does not at first view clearly and plainly appear in the peti State ex rel. Hasbrook v. Lewis, Auditor. tions that the county auditor has transmitted to the auditor of state the totals returned by the district assessors, the additions made thereto by the decennial boards of equalization, and the totals arising from such additions; but taking the petitions by the four corners, and construing them in the light, and with the knowledge, possessed by the court of such transactions, those facts appear with sufficient clearness to take them as true, when testing the sufficiency of the petitions, by a general demurrer. The ground upon which it is urged that the additions made by the decennial boards of equalization should be withdrawn, is that those boards acted in violation of the statutes prescribing their duties in making the additions, and that the violation of duty was so flagrant as to render their acts not only irregular, but void and of no effect, and being thus void, that the returns of the assessors should stand as if no increase or decrease had been made by the boards of equalization. The question then comes to this: Were the proceedings of the decennial city and county boards of equalization, in making the additions to the returns of the district assessors, when made in the manner as charged in the petitions, void, or merely irregular? If void the additions should be disregarded, but if only irregular, they must be held to be legal. The law prescribing the duties of such boards, is section 2814, Revised Statutes, as amended 94 O. L., 246, and which reads as follows: "Section 2814. The auditor shall lay before the board the returns made by the district assessors, with the additions which he shall have made thereto; and they shall then immediately proceed to equalize such valuation, so that each tract or lot shall be en State ex rel. Hasbrook v. Lewis, Auditor. tered on the tax list at its true value, and for this purpose they shall observe the following rules: "1st. They shall raise the valuation of such tracts and lots of real property as, in their opinion, have been returned below their true value, to such price or sum as they may believe to be the true value therof, agreeably to the rules prescribed by this title for the valuation thereof. "2d. They shall reduce the valuation of such tracts and lots as, in their opinion, have been returned above their true value, as compared with the average valuation of the real property of such county, having due regard to their relative situation, quality of soil, improvement, natural and artificial advantages possessed by each tract or lot. "3d. They shall not reduce the aggregate value of the real property of the county below the aggregate value thereof, as returned by the assessors, with the additions made thereto by the auditor, as hereinbefore required." The rule prescribed by the title to which the above section belongs is found in section 2792, and is that each parcel of real property shall be valued at its true value in money. This is also the rule prescribed by the constitution of the state. Section two of article twelve. It was therefore the sworn duty of each board of equalization to raise or reduce each parcel of real property to such an amount, as, in their opinion, was its true value in money; and no restriction is placed upon the manner of forming that opinion when it comes to raising the valuation, only so that it be "to such price or sum as they may believe to be the true value thereof." As the petitions do not complain of any reductions of value, we need not consider the duty State ex rel. Hasbrook v. Lewis, Auditor. of the board in that regard, but it is sufficient to say that the duties prescribed are merely directory, and the statute provides no remedy for the enforcement of such direction, and therefore the action taken by the board under the sanction of a solemn oath is presumed to be fair and correct, and is conclusive, subject to the action of the state board of equalization. It is urged that this is a case in which the boards of equalization had no jurisdiction, and not merely a case of irregular exercise of power. This is not tenable. The petitions admit that the boards of equalization were legaly constituted, and that the auditor placed before them for equalization the returns of the district assessors. Having those returns before them for the purpose of equalization, the boards were thereby invested with jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that jurisdiction continued until they completed their work; and if in the course of exercising that jurisdiction they took into consideration matters not required by the statute, that fact might be irregular, but it would not oust the jurisdiction, and would not render the result of their work void. The petitions concede in the foreparts of them, that the auditor made out and transmitted to the auditor of state, an abstract of the real property of each township returned by the several assessors, with such additions as had been made thereto, and the aggregate value of such real property as returned by the several assessors, inclusive of such additions as had been made thereto. True the pleader charges that it was a pretended abstract, and pretended additions; but nevertheless an abstract, and additions. And judging by the strong language hurled against those same additions, in other parts of the petitions, the additions |