Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford, 5297
Decision Date | 23 June 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 5297,5297 |
Parties | BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY et al. v. STANFORD. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Snell, Wilmer, Walsh, Melczer & Beauchamp, of Phoenix, for appellants.
F. Britton Burns, of Phoenix, for appellee.
DE CONCINI, Justice.
On or about September 15, 1949, William E. Stanford, Maricopa County Assessor, appellee herein, presented to the County Board of Supervisors a payroll claim in the sum of $1,689.50 and a claim for the payment of four cash registers in the sum of $8,680.20. The Board of Supervisors, hereinafter called the supervisors, refused to authorize payment of the above claim upon the ground and for the reason that sufficient funds were not present in the special fund set apart for the operation of the License Plate Department of the County Assessor's office.
Appellee, William E. Stanford, hereinafter called the assessor, petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus against the supervisors compelling them to pay the above-mentioned claims. The trial court granted the writ as to the payroll claim but refused to order the payment of the claim for the four cash registers. The supervisors appeal from the order making the writ peremptory.
The facts and issues involved in this appeal are complicated and numerous and the best method of proceeding herein is to set out a brief history of the surrounding facts and circumstances leading up to the problem. The assessor maintains two offices in Phoenix. One office is located in the Maricopa County Court House. The other office, being known as the Automobile License Plate Department, the one with which we are here concerned is located at 1205 West Madison Street in Phoenix.
Each employee of the Auto Department is hired by the assessor with the approval of the County Board of Supervisors and is paid in the same manner as are the other county employees. These employees perform dual duties prescribed by statute. One set of duties is the registration of motor vehicles and the collection of registration fees and license plate fees. The other set of duties is concerned with the assessment and collection of the 'lieu' tax imposed by constitutional amendment and by statute. As a practical matter these functions are intermingled and carried out almost simultaneously.
We deem it advisable to set out the particular statutes involved. The portion of the statute governing the collection of registration and license fees is section 66-201(f), A.C.A.1939, passed in 1937.
In 1940, article 9, section 11 of the Arizona Constitution was amended in part to read as follows: The tax provided for in the above amendment supersedes all other ad valorem tax on motor vehicles and is commonly known and will be hereafter referred to as the 'lieu' tax.
Section 66-901, A.C.A.1939, passed by the legislature in 1941 to implement article 9, section 11 of the Constitution, supra, provided for the distribution of the 'lieu' taxes as follows: In a county containing no incorporated towns, 25% to the state general fund, 37 1/2% to the county general fund, 37 1/2% to the Board of Supervisors for the benefit of certain school districts. In a county containing one or more incorporated towns, 25% to state general fund, 25% to county, 25% to Board of Supervisors as above set out, 25% to the incorporated cities and towns in proportion to their population if there is more than one.
The License Plate Department has been operated as a unit separate and apart from the regular operation of the County Assessor's office in Maricopa County for years. It has been supported solely out of revenues derived from the collection of the registration fees. Under section 66-201(f), supra, 50 cents of each registration fee is for the use of the county assessor in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by that act. Laws 1937, Reg.Sess. Ch. 67. Up to the date of bringing this action the 50-cent fee has been sufficient to pay the entire expense of the License Plate Department, including collection and distribution of 'lieu' tax. From time to time the assessor would remit enough funds to the County Treasurer to pay for the operation of the department. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fleming v. Pima County
...created to aid in the administration of the state's laws and for purposes of self-government." Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County v. Stanford, 70 Ariz. 277, 282, 219 P.2d 769, 772 (1950); Hunt v. Mohave County, 18 Ariz. 480, 483, 162 P. 600, 602 (1917). Thus, a county's liability for p......
-
Randall v. Maricopa Cnty.
...of supervisors have authority to appoint a forensic pathologist to position of medical examiner); Bd. of Sup'rs of Maricopa Cty. v. Stanford, 70 Ariz. 277, 282, 219 P.2d 769, 772 (1950) ("[C]ounty is a political subdivision of the state existing and created to aid in the administration of t......
-
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary Dist. v. Ferguson
...statute to other political subdivisions of the State. A county is one such other political subdivision. Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford, 70 Ariz. 277, 219 P.2d 769 (1950); Hunt v. Mohave County, 18 Ariz. 480, 483, 162 P. 600 (1917). A.R.S. § 12-304 exempts counties from payin......
-
Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co.
...County necessarily shares with the state of New Mexico. Counties are state-created entities. Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford, 70 Ariz. 277, 282, 219 P.2d 769, 772 (1950); Haupt v. Maricopa County, 8 Ariz. 102, 105, 68 P. 525, 526 (1902). Counties have only the powers that a s......