Barden v. Wells
Decision Date | 11 June 1894 |
Citation | 36 P. 1076,14 Mont. 462 |
Parties | BARDEN, County Treasurer, v. WELLS. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Lewis and Clarke county; William H Hunt, Judge.
Action by Richard P. Barden, county treasurer, against Charles K Wells, receiver of the C. K. Wells Company, to enforce a tax lien on certain personal property. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Toole & Wallace, for appellant.
C. B Nolan, for respondent.
The sole question involved in this case, as developed by an agreed statement of facts, is whether a lien for taxes attaches to personal property, under the laws of this state relating to the levy and collection of taxes. Counsel agree that, by the provisions of section 2 of the revenue act of 1887, such lien undoubtedly attached to personal property for the tax levied thereon, and is extinguished only by payment. But in 1891 there was enacted by the legislative assembly another general and comprehensive act upon the same subject apparently intended to, and which does, to a great extent cover the subject of levy and collection of taxes, but contains no provision like that of section 2 of the act of 1887, declaring that the tax levied on personal property should constitute a lien thereon; and thereby counsel for appellant contends that, by implication, there is manifest the legislative intention that the pre-existing statute to that effect, although not expressly repealed, became obsolete, and that no such lien can now be enforced against personal property to secure payment of the tax levied thereon. Appellant's counsel urge this proposition by pointing to the fact, apparent from an inspection of the act of 1891, that the subject of the levy and collection of taxes appears to have been generally provided for therein, even to providing that the tax levied upon real property and improvements thereon, whether the improvements were assessed to the owner of the soil or to another, should constitute a lien on such property, and further providing the method of enforcement thereof; but that act entirely omitted provision creating a lien on property strictly personal, to secure the payment of the tax levied thereon. Thereby, appellant contends, is manifest, without doubt, an intention that personal property should not be incumbered by such lien. He brings to the support of this line of reasoning citation of a number of well-considered cases: State v. O'Neil (N. J. Sup.) 25 A. 273; People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 561, 563; State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501, 512, 513; City of Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294; Fraser v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 152, 16 P. 757; Roche v. Mayor, 40 N. J. Law, 257, 262; U.S. v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 551, 552; Sedg. St. & Const. Law. p. 124; End. Interp. St. §§ 200, 201, 245; Baer v. Choir (Wash.) 36 P. 286. Counsel for the state, on the other hand, insist that the rule of interpretation contended for by appellant, although well founded in reason and authority as proper indicia of legislative intent where applicable, is not applicable in the present instance, because the legislative intention as to what pre-existing statutes should be superseded or repealed by the act of 1891 is distinctly expressed therein, and need not be sought by implication. Section 205 of the act of 1891, containing the repealing clause, is pointed to as expressing the exact intention of the legislative on that point. This section provides that "all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed." This provision, counsel for appellant contends, expressly indicates the intention on the part of the legislature that its act of 1891 should only supersede prior statutes on the subject of the levy and collection of public revenue in so far as the provisions of the prior statute were found to be "inconsistent with the provisions of this act" of 1891; that, where the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by that character of provision, there is no room for the application of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial