Board of Com'rs of Woodson County v. City of Yates Center
| Decision Date | 05 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | 31634. |
| Citation | 32 P.2d 209,139 Kan. 519 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF WOODSON COUNTY v. CITY OF YATES CENTER. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
County by board of county commissioners, held proper party to bring action to recover tax moneys paid to city in excess of those collected from property within city (Laws 1933, c. 319).
Three-year statute of limitations held inapplicable to county's claim for tax moneys paid to city in excess of those collected, both parties being governmental units (Rev. St 1923, 60--306, subd. 2).
That board of county commissioners, by annual settlements made with county treasurer, might have learned that city's account for tax moneys was overdrawn, held not to estop county from maintaining action to recover tax moneys paid to city in excess of those collected (Rev. St. 1923, 19--507 19--508).
1. In an action by a county to recover from a city therein tax moneys paid it in excess of those collected, it is held: (1) That the county is the proper party plaintiff, and (2) that the statutes of limitations (Rev. St. 1923, 60--306, subd. 2) have no application, following Board of County Com'rs of Greenwood County v. School District, 139 Kan. 297, 31 P.2d 723.
2. In such an action the fact that the county might have maintained an action against the county treasurer and his bondsmen for moneys wrongfully paid out, or that the county treasurer might have maintained an action against the city for such moneys, and that in such actions the three-year statutes of limitations would apply, does not cause the statutes of limitations to be applied when the action is brought by the county against the city; for, in the actions used for comparison, the individual liability, or right of action, of the treasurer would be involved, while here only governmental functions are involved.
3. The fact that by the annual settlements made with the county treasurer (under R. S. 19--507, 19--508) the county commissioners might have learned that the city's account with the county treasurer was overdrawn does not estop the county from maintaining this action.
Appeal from District Court, Woodson County; Frank R. Forrest, Judge.
Action by the Board of County Commissioners of Woodson County against the City of Yates Center, in Woodson County, which was consolidated with a proceeding for the allowance of a claim against the city, in which the county appealed to the district court. The original action and the appeal were consolidated. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the amended petition, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Albert B. Martin, of Lawrence, for appellant.
Carl C Chase and Thos. C. Forbes, both of Eureka, for appellee.
This is an action by Woodson county to recover from the city of Yates Center, one of the taxing districts within the county, taxes paid by the county to the city in excess of the sums collected from property within the city, for the years from 1918 to 1930, inclusive. The action, originally brought in 1932 was pending when the "cash basis" act (chapter 319, Laws 1933) became effective. In due time the county filed its claim under that act with the city, for the same items. The claim was disallowed and the county appealed to the district court. The original action and the appeal were then consolidated, and by leave of court an amended petition was filed by the county in the consolidated action. Defendant's demurrer to the petition was overruled and it has appealed.
Broadly speaking appellant argues two questions : (1) That the county is not the proper party plaintiff, and (2) that the items for the years, more than three years before the action was brought, are barred by the statute of limitations (Rev. St. 1923, 60--306, subd. 2). Both of these contentions were decided, adverse to the views of appellant, in Board of County Com'rs of Greenwood County v. School District, 139 Kan. 297, 31 P.2d 723, where reasons for the rulings were given and authorities in support of them set out, and which need not be here repeated. It is sufficient to say we are satisfied with the conclusions there reached. However, it is fair to appellant to say that its brief was prepared before the decision in that case was announced.
In support of its contention that the three-year statute of limitations is applicable, appellant argues thus: The county treasurer is custodian, prior to their disbursement, of all tax moneys collected, and, legally speaking, can pay only to those lawfully entitled to receive payment, and only in such amounts as such parties are entitled to receive; if he paid more, he and his bondsmen...
To continue reading
Request your trial