Kansas City Ft. S. & G.R. Co. v. Scammon
Decision Date | 07 February 1891 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE KANSAS CITY, FORT SCOTT & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. E. C. SCAMMON, as Treasurer of Cherokee County, et al |
Error from Cherokee District Court.
THE opinion states the facts. Judgment for the defendant Scammon and another, on February 10, 1888. The plaintiff Railroad Companies bring the case here.
Judgment affirmed.
Wallace Pratt, and Chas. W. Blair, for plaintiffs in error.
C. D Ashley, for defendants in error.
OPINION
The plaintiffs in error filed their petition in the district court of Cherokee county, praying for a temporary and permanent injunction to prevent the collection of a tax levied on the railroads of the plaintiffs in error, in certain townships in said county, by the township trustees, with the concurrence of the board of county commissioners, for township bridge purposes. To this petition a demurrer was interposed, which was sustained by the court; the plaintiffs excepted to the ruling of the court, and stood upon their petition, and judgment was rendered against them for costs; to reverse the ruling and judgment of the court below, this proceeding in error is prosecuted.
The record shows a waiver of any question in regard to a misjoinder of parties, so the only question presented is the authority of the township trustees acting with the concurrence of the board of county commissioners, to levy a separate tax for township bridge purposes. The claim is made that the township tax attempted to be levied for bridge purposes is without warrant or authority of law. The authority for such a tax levy as the one complained of is found in P 7084, Gen. Stat. of 1889, which requires that the township trustee "shall, at the July session of the board of county commissioners annually, with the advice and concurrence of said board, levy a tax on the property in said township for township, road and other purposes," etc. It is insisted that the levy made under this law was three-fold: First, for the general revenue and expenses of the township; second, for road purposes in said township; third, for township bridge purposes in said township; and that the latter is illegal. Can the levy for township bridge purposes be upheld under the clause, "for other purposes?" The principle is fundamental, that there must be legislative authority for every tax that is levied, whether state or municipal; hence, we must examine the power conferred under the phrase "for other purposes," which is indeed quite broad. In defining the clause "necessary charges," Chief Justice Parker took occasion to say, in the case of Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Priddy v. Miners' and Merchants' Bank
...violated, they cannot complain. Warder v. Supervisors, 14 Wis. 618; Buck v. Railway, 86 Ill. 360; Taylor v. Secor, 92 U.S. 575; Railway v. Scammon, 45 Kan. 481. A. Potter and Edw. J. White for respondent. (1) The judgment of the trial court was proper and it was the only judgment that could......
-
The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Gracy
...-- gives more than the amount of tax tendered, which was 1.76-81 cents on $ 100 valuation. ""Rockland v. Ulmer, 84 Me. 503; ""Railroad v. Scammon, 45 Kan. 481; ""Johnson v. Duer, 115 Mo. 379; v. Hawkins, 95 Mo. 569. Barclay, J. Brace, C. J., and Macfarlane and Robinson, JJ., concur. OPINION......
-
The Atchison v. The City of Topeka
... ... Co. v ... Wilhelm, Treas., 33 Kan. 206, 6 P. 273; K. C. Ft. S ... & G. Rld. Co. v. Scammon, 45 Kan. 481, 25 P. 858; ... Stevens v. Miller, 3 Kan.App. 192, 43 P. 439; ... The State, ex ... Kan. 201, 119 P. 327, and cases cited. See, also, Railway ... [149 P. 698] ... Kansas City, 92 Kan. 300, 140 P. 1040, and Super ... v. Modell Township, 92 Kan. 979, 146 P. 993.) Here ... ...
-
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gracy
...Supervisors (1861) 14 Wis. 618, 622; Huck v. Railroad Co. (1877) 86 Ill. 360; Taylor v. Secor (1875) 92 U. S. 575; Railroad Co. v. Scammon (1891) 45 Kan. 481, 25 Pac. 858. Equity deals with the substance of transactions, and treats their forms as of secondary importance, unless the positive......