Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford, 5297

Decision Date23 June 1950
Docket NumberNo. 5297,5297
PartiesBOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY et al. v. STANFORD.
CourtArizona 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. 'The assessor of each county is constituted an agent of the division for the performance of acts and duties delegated to him, and the offices maintained by such county assessors are constituted county offices of the division. Fifty cents (50cents) of each original registration fee shall be remitted to the county treasurer of the county in which such registration fee is collected, and placed in a special fund for the use of the assessor in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this act. Claims against said fund shall be allowed and paid in the same manner as claims against the county are allowed and paid. The board of supervisors may order the transfer of all or any unexpended part of said fund received during a previous fiscal year into the fund for the maintenance and construction of county highways. All moneys received from the taxes herein imposed, except the portion retained for the assessor's special fund, shall be immediately transferred by the collecting officer to the superintendent, and by him to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the state highway fund.'

In 1940, article 9, section 11 of the Arizona Constitution was amended in part to read as follows: '* * * Beginning January 1, 1941, a license tax is hereby imposed on vehicles registered for operation upon the highways in Arizona, which license tax shall be in lieu of all ad valorem property taxes on any vehicle subject to such license tax. Such license tax shall be collected annually by the registering officer at the time of application for and before registration of the vehicle each year and shall be (a) at a rate equal to the average ad valorem rate for all purposes in the several taxing districts of the state for the preceding year, but in no event to exceed a rate of four dollars on each one hundred dollars in value, and (b) during the first calendar year of the life of the vehicle upon a value equal to sixty per cent of the manufacturer's list price of such vehicle, and during each succeeding calendar year upon a value twenty-five per cent less than the value for the preceding calendar year.' 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
4 cases
  • Fleming v. Pima County
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 1984
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 8 Marzo 2016
    ...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
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 26 Junio 1981
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 18 Marzo 1997
    ...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......

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