Jackson v. Kaul
| Decision Date | 11 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,551 |
| Citation | 77 Kan. 715,96 P. 45 |
| Parties | THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF JACKSON et al. v. JOHN KAUL |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1908.
Error from Jackson district court; MARSHALL GEPHART, judge. Opinion filed February 8, 1908. Modified. Opinion denying a motion to order a further modification of the judgment filed April 11 1908.
Judgment remanded.
E. D Woodburn, A. E. Crane, and F. T. Woodburn, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles Hayden, for defendant in error.
The motion to make the petition more definite and certain, the demurrer to the petition, and the objection to the introduction of evidence under the petition, were all properly overruled, and the objections to evidence were all properly dealt with, since notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiff to list all his property he could recover taxes which were wrongfully charged against him under color of section 7599 of the General Statutes of 1901 and which he paid under the compulsion of a tax warrant. (Douglas County v. Lane, 76 Kan. 12, 90 P. 1092.) The terms of the plaintiff's protest did not form a part of his cause of action. The question was, Did he pay voluntarily? If not he could recover. He did pay under the coercion of a tax warrant, and that was sufficient.
Assignment of error No. 25 merely says the judgment was wrong. There is no assignment of error that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is not sustained by sufficient evidence. However, the judgment for the plaintiff is sustained by the pleadings and the evidence.
In October of each year there is a general settlement between the treasurer and the board of county commissioners, which includes a settlement of the financial affairs of each city, township and school district of the county. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 1684, 1685.) The new tax-roll for the year, which must be delivered to the treasurer and the amount of taxes shown thereon charged to him by November 1, then starts a new set of accounts, transactions and proceedings. The purpose is that personal property not listed with the assessor in any year shall be placed on the roll before the October settlement of that year, if the assessment be made by the county clerk under section 7599, above referred to. (Douglas County v. Lane, 76 Kan. 12, 90 P. 1092.) Every proposition of merit presented by the plaintiff in error has been decided in the case cited.
There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com Rs of Jackson County, Kan v. United States
... ... Jackson County, on the other hand, urges that the law of Kansas controls. It is settled doctrine there that a tax-payer may not recover from a county interest upon taxes wrongfully collected. Jackson County Com'rs v. Kaul, 77 Kan. 715, 96 P. 45, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 552 ... We deem neither the juristic theory urged by the Government nor that of Jackson County entirely appropriate for the solution of our problem. The starting point for relief in this case is the Treaty of 1861, exempting ... ...
-
Momand v. Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corporation
...question of the application of the law of Kansas to a question involving interest on taxes wrongfully collected (see Jackson County v. Kaul, 77 Kan. 715-717, 96 P. 45, 17 L.R. A.,N.S., 552), stated: "* * * But Congress has not specifically provided for the present contingency, that is, the ......
-
Palmer v. First Nat. Bank of Kingman
...under duress, a valid claim for repayment does exist. Bush v. City of Beloit, 105 Kan. 79, 181 Pac. 615 (1919); Jackson County v. Kaul, 77 Kan. 715, 96 Pac. 45 (1908); Johnson Controls v. Carrollton-Farmers, Etc., 605 S.W.2d 688; Nat'l Biscuit Co. v. State, 134 Tex. 293, 135 S.W.2d 687 (194......
-
BOARD OF COM'RS v. United States
...a county is not liable for interest in the absence of a statute expressly providing for its allowance. Jackson County Com'rs v. Kaul, 77 Kan. 715, 96 P. 45, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 552. The same is the rule in Oklahoma. Eaton v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 1927, 122 Okl. 143, 251 P. 1032, Brown v. Boa......