Golden Gate Highway District of Canyon County v. Canyon County
| Decision Date | 30 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 4993 |
| Citation | 262 P. 1048,45 Idaho 406 |
| Parties | GOLDEN GATE HIGHWAY DISTRICT OF CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, Appellant, v. CANYON COUNTY et al., Respondents |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION-TAXATION-PURPOSE-HIGHWAY DISTRICTS.
1. In case of conflict between statutory provisions and provisions of constitution, constitution must prevail.
2. Retention by county of moneys collected from property within highway district under warrant redemption levy, to be used in redemption of outstanding unpaid county road and bridge warrants under Const., art. 7, secs. 14-16, and C S., secs. 3213-3215, 3217, 3219, held not to involve double taxation, contrary to Const., art. 7, sec. 5, notwithstanding apportionment to highway districts of taxes collected within districts for roads and bridges, provided by C. S., sec 1529, since no duplicate taxation of property for the same purpose for the same year is involved.
3. Highway district held not entitled, under C. S., secs. 1529, 3213-3215, 3217 and 3219, to apportionment of seventy-five per cent of taxes collected by county from property within highway district under levy for redemption of unpaid county warrants, since such taxes are dedicated to redemption of warrants under Const., art. 7, sec. 15, and apportionment to highway districts would violate constitutional provisions.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Action to recover taxes. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.
Judgment of the trial court affirmed with costs to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.
M. H Eustace and Rice & Bicknell, for Appellant.
All road and bridge taxes levied and collected by the county within the limits of the highway district are required to be apportioned, seventy-five per cent to the highway district and twenty-five per cent to the county. (C. S., sec. 1529.)
Warrants issued for the payment of services in building or maintaining roads by the county, and which become delinquent constitute a charge upon the general county road and bridge fund.
Taxes collected and used for the redemption of delinquent road and bridge fund warrants are still road and bridge fund taxes even though pretended to be levied for a different purpose and under a different name. (Const., art. 7, sec. 5; 1 Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., 394.)
The constitutional requirement of uniformity in taxation forbids the imposition of a tax on one municipality or part of the state for the purpose of benefiting or raising money for another. (37 Cyc. 749 and citations; 1 Cooley on Taxation, 3d ed., 420.)
H. A. Griffiths, for Respondents.
"The board of county commissioners derives its power to levy taxes solely from the statute." (Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Gooding County, 33 Idaho 452, 196 P. 196.)
"Moneys once in the warrant redemption fund can only be withdrawn or paid out of said fund for the redemption of warrants issued before the levy, and all warrants issued before such levy shall be paid exclusively out of the warrant redemption fund." (Const., art. 7, sec. 15; Reinhart v. Canyon County, 22 Idaho 348, 125 P. 791; Independent Highway District v. Ada Co., 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542; Laclede Highway District v. Bonner County, 33 Idaho 476, 196 P. 196; 1927 Sess. Laws 32.)
BABCOCK, Commissioner. Adair and Hartson, CC., concur.
OPINIONBABCOCK, Commissioner.--
This action was brought by the appellant, Golden Gate Highway District, in Canyon county, to recover from the county an amount equal to seventy-five per cent of the taxes collected on property within the district, and used by the county in redemption of outstanding warrants on the county road and bridge funds, said taxes being collected by reason of certain levies made by the board of commissioners of Canyon county for the redemption of outstanding county warrants. The complaint was filed November 9, 1925. The cause was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, to the effect that the Golden Gate Highway District was created in Canyon county in June, 1916, and that subsequent to that time and in 1922 and 1923 a large percentage of the taxes assessed in Canyon county for road and bridge, and other purposes, had become delinquent, and that in anticipation of the collection of such delinquent taxes certain warrants were issued in Canyon county and remained unpaid, there being no funds with which to pay them, a large percentage of which said warrants were issued by the county for the construction, maintenance and repair of bridges and highways outside of the Golden Gate Highway District; that in 1922, the board of county commissioners of Canyon county made a levy of ten cents on each $ 100 assessed valuation of the taxable property within the county for the redemption of such outstanding warrants, and in the year 1923, for the same purpose and upon the same property, made a levy of one dollar on each $ 100 valuation; that from the levy so made in 1922, and out of the amount so collected thereby on property situate in the highway district, the county had used on October 1, 1925, the sum of $ 1,246.15, for seventy-five per cent of which, or $ 934.61, appellant sues in the first cause of action. The said sum of $ 1,246.15 was used in the redemption of delinquent county road and bridge warrants. During the same time, and out of the amount collected by reason of the levy of 1923, on the same property and for the same purposes, the county used the sum of $ 9,530.81, for seventy-five per cent of which, or $ 7,148.11, appellant sues in the second cause of action.
The court found the issues for the defendants, and made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment accordingly. This appeal is from the judgment.
The specifications of error are: (1) That the court erred in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover seventy-five per cent of the proceeds of the warrant redemption levy made by Canyon county upon the property located within the highway district and used in the payment of delinquent county road and bridge warrants; (2) the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendants.
The constitution of this state contains the following provisions relative to the finances and revenue of counties;
"No money shall be drawn from the county treasuries except upon the warrant of a duly authorized officer, in such manner and form as shall be prescribed by the legislature."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial