Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Washington County, 6018 and 6018A

Citation30 P.2d 198,54 Idaho 171
Decision Date15 February 1934
Docket Number6018 and 6018A
PartiesOREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Being One of the Organized Counties of the State of Idaho, and GEORGE E. GILDEROY, Treasurer and Ex-officio Tax Collector of Said Washington County, Respondents
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

TAXATION-GENERAL AND SPECIAL LEVIES-DUPLICATE TAXATION.

Levy to redeem warrants, part of which were issued between second Monday in January, 1931, and second Monday in April, 1931 held not invalid as involving duplicate taxation as to amounts required to pay warrants issued between such dates because general budget levy covered warrants issued subsequent to second Monday in January, where levies were applied to all property alike (I. C. A., sec. 61-803; Laws 1927, chap. 232, as amended by Laws 1929, chap. 138; Const art. 7, sec. 5).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. A. O. Sutton, Judge.

Appeal from judgment denying relief from alleged duplicate tax levy. Affirmed.

Judgment of the trial court affirmed; costs awarded to respondents.

George H. Smith and H. B. Thompson, for Appellant.

Cite no authorities on points decided.

Herman Welker and George Donart, for Respondents.

The making of a levy, pursuant to section 3217, in addition to the general levy provided by chapter 138, section 5, 1929 Session Laws, does not constitute double taxation. (Humbird Lbr. Co. v. Kootenai County, 10 Idaho 490, 79 P. 396; article 7, section 5, Idaho Const.)

GIVENS, J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

The commissioners of Washington County in September, 1931, pursuant to chapter 232, Session Laws 1927, amended by chapter 138, Session Laws 1929, which act and amendment was repealed by chapter 122, of the Session Laws for 1931, determined the budget for 1931, which included a levy for the current expense fund of 40 cents on each $ 100 of assessed valuation, the maximum amount permitted by sec. 61-803, I. C. A., on an assessed valuation in excess of $ 7,500,000.

Section 3, of the law as amended subdivided current expense into six heads:

"(1) Salaries and Wages; (2) Maintenance and Operation; (3) Capital Outlay; (4) Interest and Debt Redemption; (5) Miscellaneous and Charity; and (6) Expenditures Proposed to be Made from Bond Issues Not yet Authorized."

The board also levied 39 cents on each $ 100 of assessed valuation for the specific purpose of warrant redemption, pursuant to sec. 3217, Idaho Compiled Statutes, 1919. (Sec. 61-807, I. C. A.)

The appellant railroad admits the 40 cents levy for current expense is valid, but urges the 39 cents levy under sec. 61-807, I. C. A., is invalid to the extent of 76.86% thereof, because levied to pay warrants issued subsequent to the second Monday of January, 1931, and prior to the second Monday in April, 1931, further that the budget law as amended fixed the beginning of the fiscal year as of the second Monday in January instead of the second Monday in April.

Appellant contends thus in its brief:

"It is our contention that construing the county finance law, including Section 3217, Idaho Compiled Statutes, as amended by the Budget Law, it is manifest, on the most elementary and obvious principles of statutory construction, that a levy could not lawfully be made under Section 3217, Idaho Compiled Statutes, to raise funds to retire the warrants and the same item be duplicated in the budget and covered by an additional levy. If two acts dealing with a common subject matter are necessarily inconsistent, the latter statute is deemed to impliedly repeal the earlier. (Herrick v. Gallet, 35 Idaho 13, 204 P. 477, 479.)"

If, of course the subsequent statute repealed the first then the levy could only be made under the later statute, if, however, it did not repeal the first, appellant's only argument against the levy under both is that the same would amount to duplicate taxation contrary to section 5, article 7, of the state Constitution and the provisions of sec. 3221, Idaho Compiled Statutes. (Repealed by chap. 232, Sess. Laws 1927.)

In Humbird Lumber Co. v. Kootenai County, 10 Idaho 490 79 P. 396, where exactly the same situation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 25, 1938
    ...... District for Ada County. Hon. Charles F. Koelsch, Judge. . . ... constitution. ( Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Washington. County et al., ... Railroad Co. v. Washington County et al., 54 Idaho 171,. ......
  • Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 15, 1934
    ...... Blaine County. Hon. D. H. Sutphen, Judge. . . Suit ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT