
    The State, ex rel. Curry et al., Board of County Commissioners of Cuyahoga County, v. Monroe, Treas., et al. Carney, Aud., et al., Appellants, v. Kirwin et al., Board of Tax Appeals, Appellees.
    (Nos. 33332 and 33355
    Decided February 13, 1953.)
    
      
      Mr. Frank T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Saul S. Danaceau and Mr. A. M. Braun, for relators.
    
      Mr. C. William O’Neill, attorney general, Mr. Robert E. Leach, Mr. Hugh A. Sherer and Mr. Everrett E. Krueger, Jr., for respondents and appellees.
    
      Mr. Franh T. Cullitan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. George W. Jjeddon, for appellants.
   Per Curiam.

Section 5579, General Code, imposes upon the Board of Tax Appeals the duty to “direct and supervise the assessment for taxation of all real property in the state.” Section 5612, General Code, requires each county auditor to transmit to the Board of Tax Appeals an abstract of all the real property in each taxing district in his county, setting forth the aggregate amount and valuation of each class as it appears on his tax list. To make such direction and supervision effective, Section 5613, General Code, requires that the Board of Tax Appeals shall determine whether the real property and the various classes thereof have been assessed at the true value thereof in money and, if necessary, to revise the valuation as listed by the auditor, in order that every cláss of property “shall be listed and valued for taxation by an equal and uniform rule at its true value in money.”

The Board of Tax Appeals having reviewed and disapproved the abstract in question and having ordered a blanket horizontal increase of 25 per cent, Section 5615, General Code, imposes upon the county auditor a mandatory ministerial duty to comply with that order. Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 100 Ohio St., 433, 126 N. E., 409, 24 A. L. R., 318.

Ultimate facts showing a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the Board of Tax Appeals in making the order complained of have not been alleged.

Accordingly, this court, in these proceedings, will not disturb the order of the Board of Tax Appeals.

In case No. 33332, the demurrer to the petition is' sustained and a writ denied.

In case No. 33355, since both parties concede that there is no statutory authority for the appeal, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

Writ denied.

Appeal dismissed.

Weygandt, C. J., Middleton, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Taft, J.,

concurring. If, as a result of the auditor performing his duty, pursuant to Section 5615, General Code, any property is valued at more than it lawfully should be, a taxpayer, who is affected by such over-valuation, is given adequate remedies to protect his interests. Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 112 Ohio St., 158, 147 N. E., 94. See, also, Hammond, Treas., v. Winder, Recr., 100 Ohio St., 433, 446, 126 N. E., 409, 24 A. L. R., 318.

To allow the writ prayed for in the instant case would be to enable parties, who will not be affected adversely by any such over-valuations, to substitute the extraordinary remedy of mandamus for adequate remedies which are available to all who may be so affected by such over-valuations. Cf. State, ex rel. Blackburn, v. Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 154 Ohio St., 464, 96 N. E. (2d), 297; State, ex rel. Harris, Chief of Police, v. Haynes, Mayor, 157 Ohio St., 214, 105 N. E. (2d), 53 (syllabus, paragraph three).

It may be observed that the statutory provisions with respect to those remedies are such as to enable prompt collection of the amount of taxes which will not be in dispute without prejudicing taxpayers in contesting any excess over that amount. Section 5609, General Code.

Further, it may be observed that the increase in valuations ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals will not necessarily result in the levy of an additional amount of taxes over the amount levied for the tax year 1951, since a reduction must be made in tax rates by the local taxing authorities, as provided in Section 5548-2, General Code; and a reduction inside the 10-mill constitutional limitation may be made by the local taxing authorities.  