Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 01 July 1916
• Citation: 29 Idaho 294,158 P. 560
• Parties: NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. JOHN L. CHAPMAN, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

158 P. 560

29 Idaho 294

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. JOHN L. CHAPMAN, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 1, 1916

SCHOOL DISTRICTS-MAXIMUM TAX LEVY-ANNUAL MEETING-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-MINISTERIAL OFFICERS-EXTENSION TAXES ON ROLLS-COLLECTION.

1. Held, that subd. a, sec. 54, Sess. Laws 1913, p. 363 providing that "The annual school meeting for the transaction of school district business in districts other than independent school districts shall be held on the third Monday in April," and subd. c of said section providing that "Said annual meeting shall determine if a special tax shall be levied, and the rate of the levy, which shall not exceed five (5) mills on each dollar of taxable property. Said special tax shall be for building or repairing school property, for school equipment, or for the support of the school," authorized the qualified electors present at such annual meeting to determine whether a special tax shall be levied for building or repairing school property, for school equipment, or for the support of the school, and limited the levy to five mills on each dollar of taxable property, and was the only law applicable to such school districts in force and effect on the third Monday of April 1915, under which a valid levy could be made.

2. Held, that where the statute provides that school taxes shall be levied in the same manner and by the same officers as county taxes are levied and collected, it has reference to the machinery and agencies by which such taxes shall be extended on the tax-rolls and collected.

3. Held, that where the statute directs the commissioners to make a sufficient levy in mills to produce the amount of money certified to be levied by special tax for school districts, it was the intention of the legislature to direct the commissioners to act in a ministerial capacity and not otherwise.

[As to delegation by the legislature of the power of taxation, see note in 74 Am.Dec. 590]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District for Nez Perce County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action to recover excessive levy of school taxes. Judgment for defendant. Reversed.

Judgment of the trial court reversed, with instructions. Costs awarded to appellant.

James E. Babb, for Appellant.

Common school districts were limited in their levy by chap. 88, Laws 1913, and hence could not levy to exceed five mills for the year 1914. (Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Minidoka County, 28 Idaho 214, 153 P. 424.)

"No county or other local tax is valid unless it is duly levied by the proper local authorities." (37 Cyc. 970.)

And, in general, the statutory formalities must be strictly complied with, or the tax will be void. (37 Cyc. 971.)

No power is conferred on the county commissioners to determine whether a tax shall be raised, or the amount thereof; in other words, to levy the tax within the legal meaning of that term. The commissioners discharge a purely ministerial or administrative function in extending the tax on the rolls. (State v. Lakeside Land Co., 71 Minn. 283, 73 N.W 970.)

It is immaterial, therefore, that the amended law was in effect when the commissioners performed the ministerial act of extending the tax on the rolls. The tax was not "levied" at the time, but solely by the vote of the annual meeting in April, at which time the law of 1915 was not in effect. (Dickson v. Burckmyer, 67 S.C. 526, 46 S.E. 343; State v. Byrne, 32 Wash. 264, 274, 73 P. 394.)

Henry S. Gray and J. H. Peterson, Attorney General, for Respondent.

The word "levy" is frequently used in more than one sense, and its meaning in a particular instance is determined by resort to the context. (Southern Ry. Co. v. Kay, 62 S.C. 28, 39 S.E. 785; Morton v. Comptroller General, 4 S.C. 430; Valle v. Fargo, 1 Mo.App. 344, 345.)

While our legislatures in the several acts in question have used the word "levy" in a somewhat loose manner, and with the doubtful significance that it has been used in many cases, as above cited, it appears that the real purpose has uniformly been to have the school districts estimate a budget for the guidance of the commissioners, much in the same manner as is done in the state of Washington under Rem. & Bal. Ann. Codes, sec. 4521. (Goodwin v. Carr, 78 Wash. 193, 138 P. 662.)

BUDGE, J. Sullivan, C. J., MORGAN, J., Concurring.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

This suit was commenced by the appellant on January 8, 1916, in the district court of the second judicial district, in and for Nez Perce County, to recover $ 1,402.30, with interest at seven per cent, from December 23, 1916, on account of an alleged excessive levy of school taxes in certain school districts of respondent county.

Omitting the formal parts, the complaint alleges that appellant is the owner of a right of way and railroad track running through school districts 21, 54, 55, 51, 57 and 59, in Nez Perce county, which railroad was assessed and equalized on the rolls of Nez Perce county for the year 1915. For the year 1915 the duly constituted authorities of said school district caused to be levied a special tax for building or repairing school property and for school equipment, and for the support and maintenance of the schools of said districts in excess of five mills upon the valuation of said property, said special tax being in addition to the tax levied for indebtedness or sinking fund, or for any other purpose than those aforesaid. The excessive levies were extended upon the assessment-rolls of Nez Perce county, and amount to the sum of $ 2,804.59, one-half whereof has been paid under protest. It is further alleged in the complaint that "such action was taken making such special levies at the annual school meeting held in April, 1915, in each of said districts, at such meetings special taxes were voted and levied in excess of five mills as aforesaid." The complaint also sets out a detailed statement of the excessive levies in each district totaling the sum of $ 2,804.59. In paragraph 8 of the complaint it is alleged that plaintiff duly tendered the amount of taxes legally assessable by said school districts, which was refused, because it was not the full amount appearing on the rolls to be due, and thereupon plaintiff paid under protest one-half the full amount appearing to be due, including one-half of said excess tax of $ 2,804.59, or an excessive sum of $ 1,402.30, for which judgment is prayed.

To the complaint a demurrer was filed for want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and was sustained by the trial court. Appellant refused to plead further, and judgment of dismissal was entered with costs. This is an appeal from the judgment.

There is but one assignment of error, and that is with respect to the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, and entering judgment of dismissal. And there is but one question for decision, namely, whether the laws of Idaho authorized a levy for special school purposes in excess of five mills for the year 1915.

It is admitted that an annual school meeting for the transaction of school district business was held in each and all of the school districts to which reference is made in appellant's complaint on the third Monday of April, 1915, at which meeting it was determined that a special tax should be, and the same was, levied on each dollar of taxable property in excess of five mills. It is also admitted that chapter 88, Sess. Laws 1913, p. 362, and chapter 115, Sess. Laws 1913, p. 434, were the only statutory provisions in force on the third Monday of April, 1915, when the levies in question by the various school districts were made.

Subdivision c of sec. 54, chap. 88, 1913 Sess Laws, p. 363, provides: "Said annual meeting shall determine if a special tax shall be levied, and the rate of the levy, which shall not exceed five (5) mills on each dollar of taxable property. Said special tax shall be for building or repairing school property, for school equipment, or for the support of the school. Having determined the rate to be levied, the meeting shall proceed to ballot on which ballot shall be written or printed: 'Tax, Yes,' 'Tax, No.' . . . If a majority of the voters polled at such election are in favor of the tax, the board of trustees shall immediately make such levy and certify the fact, date thereof, and the rate of the tax levied, the year for which levied, and the number of the district, to the clerk of the board of county commissioners and the county assessor, but not more than one such special tax...