Martin v. Gilliam County

• Decision Date: 09 July 1918
• Citation: Martin v. Gilliam County, 89 Or. 394, 173 P. 938 (Or. 1918)
• Parties: MARTIN v. GILLIAM COUNTY ET AL. [*]
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

173 P. 938

89 Or. 394

MARTIN v. GILLIAM COUNTY ET AL.^[*]

Supreme Court of Oregon

July 9, 1918

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gilliam County; D. R. Parker, Judge.

Suit by A. H. Martin against Gilliam County and others.Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.Reversed, and suit dismissed.

This is a suit to enjoin the collection of a ten-mill special road tax attempted to be levied by road district No. 1 of Gilliam county on November 24, 1917.No attempt whatever was made by the road district to comply with the so-called budget law.The question therefore squarely presented is as to the validity of a special road tax levied under the 1917 Highway Code without any budget.

Plaintiff brought this suit as an affected taxpayer.Defendants answered, claiming the budget law did not apply to road districts acting under the 1917statute.Plaintiff's demurrer to the answer was sustained, and, based upon a stipulation as to the facts, the court ordered a decree for plaintiff holding the tax void.

The act requiring a budget in Oregon is chapter 234,Laws 1913, p 458.Section 1, among other things, provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any tax to be levied, proposed or adopted, for any county, unless an estimate shall have first been made of the amount of money proposed to be raised by taxation for the ensuing year and such estimate published and opportunity for a full and complete discussion thereof allowed in the manner hereinafter provided for.* * * Estimates of the amounts to be raised by taxation shall be made a sufficient length of time in advance of all regular or special meetings at which by law levies are authorized to be made to permit publication as hereinafter provided."

Section 2 provides in part as follows:

"The estimates required, together with a notice of the time and place at which such estimates may be discussed with the county court, shall be published at least twice prior to the time appointed for such proposed meeting in the official county newspaper: Provided, that the first publication shall not be less than twenty days nor the second less than ten days prior to such meeting."

Section 6 of the act provides:

"It shall be the duty of the county court, or such person or persons under their authority as they shall designate, to prepare the estimates in this act provided for and the cost of publishing the same shall be paid out of the funds of the county kept for purposes of advertising."

Chapter 222,Laws 1915, p. 297, reads as follows:

"An act subjecting all tax levying districts, except cities having a population over 150,000, to the budget laws provided for counties.

"Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oregon:

"Section 1.All districts and corporate bodies or organizations having power to levy taxes, except cities having a population of over 150,000 inhabitants according to the last government census, are hereby made subject to the provisions of chapter 234 of the General Laws of Oregon, 1913, and any other budget law that is now or may hereafter be in force applying to counties having a population of less than 150,000 inhabitants.

"Sec 2.In complying with such law or laws the duties imposed on the county clerk or auditor shall be performed by the clerical officer or auditor of the tax levying district and the duties imposed upon the county court shall be performed by the tax levying board or body of the district, and the duties imposed upon any other officer of the county shall be performed by the corresponding officer of such district, if there be one, and if there be none, then by such officer as may be designated by the tax levying board or body of the district."

Jay Bowerman, of Portland (T. A. Weinke, Dist. Atty., of Condon on the brief), for appellants.J. B. Hosford, of Moro, for respondent.Carey & Kerr and Omar C. Spencer, all of Portland, amici curiae.

McBRIDE C.J.(after stating the facts as above).

It is plausibly contended by appellant that the law of 1917(Laws 1917, p. 613), is practically complete in itself, and that under its provisions the so-called budget law is inapplicable and unworkable.Waiving these considerations, however, we find an insuperable objection to the constitutionality of the act of 1915, supra, making the budget law applicable to "districts, corporate bodies or organizations having power to levy taxes."That objection is found in the flagrant disregard of section 22, art. 4, of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

"No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth and published at full length."

...