Atchison

Decision Date07 March 1885
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesTHE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY v. LEVI WILHELM, as Treasurer of Jefferson County, et al

Error from Jefferson District Court.

ACTION by The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company against Levi Wilhelm, as treasurer, and George Davis, as sheriff of Jefferson county, to restrain the collection of certain taxes. Upon the filing of the petition, a temporary injunction was allowed by the district judge of Jefferson county. On June 24, 1884, the plaintiff filed the following amended petition (omitting court and title):

"Plaintiff complains of the said defendants, and for its cause of action says, that it is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the territory and state of Kansas; that plaintiff is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned the owner of a line of railway and other personal property, in said county of Jefferson and state of Kansas that at the time required by law, said property was assessed by the officers duly authorized thereto, in the county of Jefferson, for the year 1882, at the sum of $ 232,000.86 that its said property in school district number 85, in said county, was assessed in said year at the valuation of $ 23,362.67; that its said property in school district number 24 was assessed, in the year aforesaid, at the valuation of $ 24,142.57; that at the time required by law, the board of county commissioners in the year 1882 levied a tax of 12 1/2 mills, in said school district number 85, for a building fund; that at the time required by law, the board of county commissioners of said county levied a tax for the year 1882 of three mills, in said school district number 24, for a library fund; that at the time required by law, the board of county commissioners of said county levied a tax of two mills upon all the taxable property of said county for said year for a poor-fund, in addition to the ten mills levied for current expenses, the said county having less than five million dollars of taxable property; that the assessed valuation of all the taxable property in said Jefferson county for the year 1882 was the sum of $ 3,217,000.31; that the assessed valuation of all the taxable property in school district number 24, in said county, for the year 1882, was the sum of $ 71,447; that the taxes assessed as aforesaid, as and for a poor-fund, would raise a sum greatly in excess of the sum of $ 500, were never submitted to a vote of the people, or authorized by a vote of the people of said Jefferson county at any general election at a poll open for that purpose; that plaintiff, at the time required by law paid into the county treasury of the said county the sum of ten mills on its assessed valuation in said school district number 85 for a building fund, and also the sum of one-half a mill on its assessed valuation in school district number 24 in said county for a library fund, the same being all the taxes legally levied upon its said property for said purpose but it refused to and still doth refuse to pay the said excessive levy of two and one-half mills in school district number 85 for said building fund, and two and one-half mills in said school district number 24 for a library fund, and said levy of two mills upon its property in said Jefferson county for a poor-fund, for the reason that the same is illegal and not authorized by law; that the said illegal levies amounted, upon the assessed valuation of plaintiff's property as aforesaid, in school district number 85 as aforesaid, to the sum of $ 58.40, in school district number 24 as aforesaid $ 60.35, and upon its assessed valuation in said county as aforesaid the sum of $ 464, making a total of $ 582.75; that in all previous years there was levied by the board of county commissioners of the said county for the current expenses of any one of said years a tax of one per cent. or more on the dollar of the valuation of the taxable property in said county. And plaintiff further says, that the said levy of two mills upon all the taxable property in said county for the said year, in addition to the levy of ten mills for the current expenses of the said county, is illegal and void; that such excessive levy of two mills over and above the ten mills on the dollar of the valuation of the taxable property of the said county was never submitted to or authorized by a direct vote of the electors of the said county; that no levy of a tax for the said year 1882, for the current expenses of the said year, in excess of ten mills on the dollar of said valuation of the taxable property in said county, was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • School Dist. No. 24 of St. Louis County v. Neaf
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Marzo 1941
  • Howard v. Luke
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 1917
    ... ... required to defend suits to test the legality of the election ... authorizing their issuance. In defending a suit of this kind ... they are mere volunteers in so far as the interest of the ... school district is concerned. Atchison, T. & S.F ... Co. v. Wilhelm, 33 Kan. 206, 6 P. 273 ... It is ... not always an easy matter to determine who are proper ... parties, but if a party be indispensable, it would seem a ... statement of the case would plainly show it. The rule is ... "The parties ... ...
  • Yount v. Hoover
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1915
  • The Atchison v. The City of Topeka
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 1915
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT