Hanson v. Burris
Decision Date | 23 May 1935 |
Docket Number | 5486 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | HANSON v. BURRIS et al |
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1935.
Appeal from District Court, Fifth District, Millard County; Le Roy H. Cox, Judge.
Action by Henry Hanson against Oak Burris and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Soule & Spalding and S. R. Thurman, all of Salt Lake City, for appellants.
Charles D. Moore, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
The complaint herein pleads two causes of action: (1) The short form to quiet title; and (2) title to the property by virtue of purchase from Millard county after said county had acquired title thereto by purchase or foreclosure of tax lien for nonpayment of taxes, setting forth in detail the procedure from the tax levy through to sale and issuance of auditor's deed to the county and subsequent purchase by plaintiff from the county. The land described consists of 80 acres within the boundaries of the Millard county drainage district No. 3 in Millard county, Utah. The steps in the tax proceedings of assessment, levy, notice of due date, delinquency notice, sale, issuance of certificate of sale, failure to redeem, execution of auditor's tax deed, publication of notice of the May sale (so-called) and the sale and transfer of the described property by the county to plaintiff were alleged. The amount paid for the property including taxes for subsequent years from delinquency with interest and penalties is set forth. The plaintiff prayed that title to the property be quieted in him and for other relief.
Plaintiff joined in the action as defendants all parties who appeared of record to have any interest in the issues including the original owner, the mortgage holder, easement holders, judgment creditors, Millard county drainage district No. 3, and certain bondholders. All defendants defaulted except appellants Millard Realty Corporation, George S. Ingraham, Sherwood Green, and Edward P. McKenna. Ingraham, Green, and McKenna compose the bondholders' committee of drainage district No. 3. They and the Millard County Realty Corporation, a bondholders' operating company, set up similar defenses. The drainage district did not appeal.
Four cases bearing more or less directly upon the same issues were argued together, and though the drainage district had not appealed, legal counsel appeared upon consent of all parties, filed a brief, and stated the position of the drainage district.
The amended answer of the appellants, after admitting some of the allegations of the complaint and denying others, sets out the organization of the defendant drainage district and the issuance and sale by the district on August 1, 1918, of drainage district bonds in the sum of $ 1,250,000. The form of the bond, the numbers, denominations, amounts, and dates of maturity are set out. All bonds issued are identical in wording and differ only in number, denomination, and date of maturity. Defendants alleged the drainage district was duly organized before the bonds were sold; that the drainage district estimated and equalized the assessment of drainage benefits under the Drainage Act of Utah, and set out in haec verba or in substance Comp. Laws Utah, 1917, § 2055, relating to such proceedings; section 2057, relating to computing the drainage tax and placing the same upon the assessment roll; section 2058 relating to when drainage taxes become a lien, when delinquent, and the time and manner of collection; section 2071, relating to issuance of drainage district bonds; and section 2072, making the bonds a lien upon all lands within the drainage district; also the substance of sections 5910, 5912, 6010, 6016, 6018, 6020, and 6021, Comp. Laws Utah 1917. These latter sections provided how the county tax roll is made up by the county assessor, the delivery of the tax roll by the assessor to the county treasurer, the treasurer's duties in relation thereto, notices to taxpayers, publication of delinquent tax lists, notices of sale, time and manner of sales for delinquency, duties of the auditor and treasurer in relation to tax sales, issuance of tax sale certificates, form thereof, and sales to the county with the recordation thereof. Sections 2055, 2057, 2058, 2071, and 2072, supra, are found in the chapter of the Compiled Laws relating to drainage districts; the other sections are found in the chapters relating to assessment and collection of taxes generally.
Appellants contend the amendment of section 2058, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, by chapter 47, Session Laws 1921, and chapter 109, Session Laws 1925, are unconstitutional and "the crux of this suit." Appellants reduce the controversy to one, as they assert, revolving "around the impairment of the obligation of contract under the Federal Constitution."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of County Com'rs. of Big Horn County v. Bench Canal Drainage Dist.
...That this tax be promptly and fully collected is of supreme and vital importance to the people of the commonwealth." In Hanson v. Burris, 86 Utah 424, 46 P.2d 400, affirmed U.S. 378, 56 S.Ct. 511, 80 L.Ed. 728, it was held that a tax deed issued pursuant to a lien for general taxes extingui......
-
State ex rel. Goshen Irrigation District v. Hunt, Secretary of State
...and a lien or general taxes thereon are superior to the lien for drainage district taxes. Robinson v. Hanson, 282 P. 782; Hanson v. Burris, 46 P.2d 400. For relator, there was a brief by Reid & More of Torrington and oral argument by Erle H. Reid. The first ground of the demurrer is that th......
-
Western Beverage Co. of Provo v. Hansen
...improvement taxes is more nearly analogous to drainage district and irrigation district bonds and warrants, discussed in the case of Hanson v. Burris, supra, than to general tax lien. Section 80-10-1, Revised Statutes of Utah 1933, relating to general tax lien provides: "Every tax has the e......
-
Albergo v. Gigliotti
... ... Gibson, of Price, and B. W. Dalton, of Los Angeles, Cal., for ... respondents ... FOLLAND, ... Chief Justice. HANSON and LARSON, JJ., MOFFAT, Justice, ... WOLFE, Justice, concurring ... OPINION ... [85 P.2d 108] ... [96 ... Utah ... Naturally, if ... the auditor's deed extinguished the mortgagor's title ... and wiped off all liens ( Hanson v. Burris , ... 86 Utah 424, 46 P.2d 400) the purchase of the mortgagor at ... the tax sale would not be a redemption (the period of ... redemption having ... ...