Frontier Land & Cattle Co. v. Baldwin

Citation3 Wyo. 764,31 P. 403
PartiesFRONTIER LAND & CATTLE CO. v. BALDWIN, County Treasurer
Decision Date22 August 1892
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Error to district court, Fremont county; JESSE KNIGHT, Judge.

Action by the Frontier Land & Cattle Company against Melville N Baldwin, county treasurer and collector of taxes for the county of Fremont, to enjoin the collection of a tax. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Modified.

Judgment modified.

Lacey &amp Van Devanter, for plaintiff in error.

A. C Campbell and R. W. Breckons, for defendant in error.

GROESBECK, C. J. CONAWAY and MERRELL, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GROESBECK, C. J.

This cause was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. The Frontier Land & Cattle Company, during the year 1889, was a domestic corporation, having been organized and then existing under the laws of Wyoming territory. It was engaged in the business of stock raising, and had a range for its live stock in the county of Fremont, where its home ranch was situate. Its principal office and place of business was at Cheyenne, in Laramie county. This corporation brought in by rail in the latter part of May, 1889, between 2,000 and 2,200 head of its cattle, unloading them at Uva, Laramie county, from whence they were driven leisurely to the range of the corporation in Fremont county, arriving there on or about the 1st day of July, 1889. The cattle were in no county of the territory of Wyoming, except while in transit to Fremont county, and were assessed for taxation in that county only. They were of the class valued for the purposes of taxation for that year by the territorial board of equalization at $ 11 per head. On July 22, 1889, the assessor of Fremont county requested the plaintiff in error to list and return to him the said cattle for assessment in his county for that year, accompanying that request with blank assessment lists. This the corporation refused to do, and thereupon the assessor assessed the cattle upon the best information obtainable by him as to the situation and number thereof, and placed the same upon the county assessment roll, where is and was placed the assessment of property made after the completion of the annual assessment for the county. This assessment was made after the completion of the regular annual county assessment for the year 1889, and prior to the final adjournment of the second and last meeting of the board of county commissioners of the county, sitting as a board of equalization for the county; such board finally adjourning at its said second meeting on the 27th day of July, 1889, but examining and considering the assessment of these cattle to the plaintiff in error before such adjournment. The board made no change or alteration as to the number or value of the cattle, and notice was at once given of the action of the assessor and the board of equalization as to such assessment and proceedings to the plaintiff in error, but no record was made by the board, showing such examination and consideration of the assessment by the members thereof, and said corporation assessed was not present nor represented before the board at any time during its said second and final meeting, and did not have time to appear or be represented thereat. The plaintiff in error paid to Fremont county the sum of $ 1,389.10, the taxes upon all of its other property for the year 1889. The taxes levied and assessed against these cattle brought into the territory were $ 515.70, which was the regular rate of taxation on such property for the current year, authorized by law. The plaintiff in error refused to pay these taxes last mentioned, and sought to have the collection of the same perpetually enjoined. The district court for Fremont county gave judgment for the amount of the taxes against the plaintiff in error, and it brings error here.

This suit was brought, and the facts detailed in the agreed statement occurred, before the admission of the state into the Union, and hence the various provisions of the constitution of the state relative to taxation do not apply. The law governing the case is found in the acts of congress concerning the territories, or the territory of Wyoming in particular, and in the legislation of the territory on the subject. The restrictions on the taxing power of the legislative assembly of the territory are found in the following congressional enactments in the Revised Statutes of the United States: "The legislative power of every territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States. But no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of nonresidents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents." Rev. St. § 1851. "In addition to the restrictions upon legislative powers of the territories contained in the preceding chapter, section eighteen hundred and fifty-one, the legislative assemblies of Colorado, Dakota, and Wyoming shall not pass any law impairing the rights of private property, nor make any discrimination in taxing different kinds of property; but all property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value." Id. § 1925. The cattle of the plaintiff in error, brought into the territory the latter part of May, and being in Fremont county on or about the 1st day of July, 1889, were assessed and taxed, it is contended, under the authority conferred by either or both of the following sections of the Revised Statutes of Wyoming. Section 3843: "Any live stock that may be driven into any county of this territory for the purpose of grazing therein, at any time previous to the thirty-first day of December in any year, shall be subject to assessment for all taxes leviable in said county for the year then past, in the same manner and to the same extent as though said stock had been in the county at the time of the annual assessment; and it shall be the duty of the proper officers to assess the same at any time after the time of the annual assessment; and said taxes shall become due and be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the annual levy; and, if assessed after such annual levy is payable, they shall become due and be collected as soon as assessed, and, if not paid, shall then become delinquent, and be treated in the same manner as other delinquent taxes: provided, that, if such stock shall be assessed and taxed at the next annual assessment, and such tax shall be collected, the county commissioners shall remit a just proportion, according to the portion of the calendar year for which said stock remained in the territory of the tax first above provided for in this section." Sess. Laws, 1882, c. 91, § 1. Section 3845: "Any personal property brought, driven, or coming into this territory at any time prior to the last day of each year, and which shall remain in the territory for a period of not less than thirty days, shall be subject to and shall be assessed for all taxes leviable in the county in which the same shall thus be found for that year, in the same manner and to the same extent as though said property had been in the county at the time of the annual assessment: provided, that such property has not been regularly assessed in some other county of the territory for that year; and it shall be the duty of the proper officers to assess the same at any time after the time of the annual assessment, and said taxes shall become due and payable, and shall be collected, at the same time and in the same manner as the annual taxes levied in such county; and, if assessed after such annual taxes are payable, they shall become due and payable as soon as assessed and levied, and, if not paid on demand, shall then become delinquent, and shall be treated and collected in the same manner as other delinquent taxes: provided, that, if said property shall have been in the territory before such assessment for any time more than thirty days and less than six months, then there shall be levied against the same but a half year's tax, the same to be computed at one half of the tax levied against other like property for the current year; and to this end the assessor assessing the same shall, in his assessment, return and show the length of time said property has been in the territory: and provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed into an authority to assess or levy a tax by additional assessment and levy upon any merchant or dealer within the territory on goods, wares, or merchandise brought into the country to replenish the stock of such merchant or dealer, and keep it up to the amount at which it was originally assessed, and who has already been assessed on his stock for the current year." Sess. Laws, 1884, c. 93, § 3.

These sections cannot be construed so that they may stand together. The first in order (3843) applies only to live stock driven into any county, for the purpose of grazing therein, at any time previous to the last day of December in any year, while the second (3845) applies to all personal property brought or driven into the territory during such period, except the goods, wares, and merchandise of a merchant brought in to replenish his stock. The use of the words "driven into," in this last section (3845) can only refer to live stock, even if the terms "any personal property" did not include it. Section 3843 provides that, if the live stock mentioned is assessed for taxation the following year, the county commissioners shall remit a just proportion of the tax for the first year, according to the portion of the calendar year the stock remained in the territory; while section 3845 provides...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kelley v. Rhoads
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 6, 1898
    ...33; Buford v. Houtz, 10 S.Ct. R., 307.) Double taxation is not favored by the courts. (R. R. Co. v. Jackson, 7 Wall., 262; Frontier L. & C. Co. v. Baldwin, 3 Wyo. 771.) act of 1895 made no provision for hearing and review; and its provisions violate the constitutional mandates as to the uni......
  • Corthell v. The Board of County Commissioners
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1932
    ...(3rd Ed.) Page 389. The distinction made in the assessment of "capital employed" and upon "specific property" are set forth in Frontier Co. v. Baldwin, 31 P. 403. Property may be added to the assessment roll assessments. 2841 C. S. Also, 2819, 2820 C. S., Sec. 1515 C. S. does not limit the ......
  • Standard Cattle Company v. Baird
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1899
    ...Sec. 182; 102 Mass. 386; 18 Ill.App. 559; 5 Or. 243; 26 Pa. 446; 13 Mich. 481; 24 id., 389; 15 O. St., 573; 11 Wall., 88; 143 U.S. 18; 3 Wyo. 764; 23 Ency. L., 479, 485.) The latest declaration of the Legislature should prevail. (52 P. 652; 6 Ark. 24; 16 F. 751.) The Act of 1888 is unconsti......
  • White v. Hinton
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1892

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