City of Eugene v. Lane County

• Decision Date: 07 January 1908
• Citation: 93 P. 255,50 Or. 468
• Parties: CITY OF EUGENE v. LANE COUNTY.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

93 P. 255

50 Or. 468

CITY OF EUGENE v. LANE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 7, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; J.W. Hamilton, Judge.

Action by the city of Eugene against Lane county. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding brought by the plaintiff to review the action of the county court of Lane county in disallowing its claim for road tax money collected by the county from the taxable property within the city of Eugene. The claim presented by the plaintiff against the county recites that the county court of said county did on January 7, 1904, levy a tax against all taxable property in said county, including property within said city of Eugene, in which was computed for road purposes one mill on each dollar, which tax was computed on the assessment roll for the year 1903, and that the same levy was made for a similar purpose January 11 1905, and computed on the tax roll for the year 1904, and again on January 6, 1906, computed on the tax roll for the year 1905, and that of the taxes so levied there was collected by the county and turned over to its treasurer of the tax so computed for road purposes upon the taxable property within said city of Eugene a total of $5,291.44, and that on the 16th day of June, 1906, the said county court after consideration, disallowed said claim, and the plaintiff brought the said proceeding to the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Lane county by writ of review, and by it the writ was sustained, and the county court directed to allow the said claim with interest from June 16, 1906; and the county has brought the case to this court by appeal.

Woodcock & Potter, for appellant.

Williams & Bean, for respondent.

EAKIN J. (after stating the facts as above).

The city charter of 1893 (Laws 1893, p. 564), in force at the time of the levy of January 7, 1904, and January 11, 1905 provided (section 127) that the city shall constitute an independent road district, and for road purposes is expressly taken from the jurisdiction and control of the county court. The charter of 1905, in force at the time of the levy of January 6, 1906, by section 114, which corresponds with section 127 (page 595) of the charter of 1893, in taking from the county the jurisdiction over the territory within the city of Eugene for road purposes, also expressly takes away the power to levy taxes for road purposes, and road and poll taxes are by both charters given over to the control of the city, and the city is authorized to levy a road tax to be collected as other taxes. By section 3098, B. & C. Comp which has been in force since 1893, cities and school districts are required, after making their tax levy, to notify the county clerk thereof, and by section 3094 the county clerk shall include such city and other tax levies with the county levy in extending the same upon the tax roll and they shall be collected by the sheriff as other taxes are collected. It has been decided by this court, in Salem v. Marion County, 25 Or. 449, 36 P. 163, and Oregon City v. Clackamas County, 32 Or. 491, 52 P. 310, that, where the county collects road taxes belonging to the city that should have been collected by the city officers, the county is required to pay over the same to the city, and this is conceded by defendant; but it is claimed that the case at bar does not come within the ruling in Salem v. Marion County, for the reason that the road tax levy in the latter case, even within the city, was properly made by the county court, but that it was the duty of the city's officers, and not the sheriff, to collect the tax. In this case, as well as in that, the county had no right or claim to the money. It properly belongs to the city. In Salem v. Marion County, supra, the tax was collected by the wrong officer, while in this case it was collected by the right officer, but the levy made by the wrong body; and the whole reliance by the defendant, to justify its refusal to pay the money over to the city, is that it is liable only to the taxpayers, and not to the city. However,...