Raybould v. Hardy

• Decision Date: 18 April 1891
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: BENJAMIN G. RAYBOULD, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. EDWARD ASHTON, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS. JAMES LOWE, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS

26 P. 982

7 Utah 368

BENJAMIN G. RAYBOULD, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

EDWARD ASHTON, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

JAMES LOWE, AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. LEONARD G. HARDY, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS

Supreme Court of Utah

April 18, 1891

APPEAL from a judgment upon demurrer of the district court of the third judicial district.

The complaint alleged that defendant Hardy was collector for Salt Lake City and as such claimed to be collector for the consolidated Salt Lake City school district; that the defendant, the board of education of Salt Lake City, and Joseph B. Walden, Salt Lake City treasurer, claimed to be entitled to the special school tax in dispute, and that Hardy was proceeding to collect the tax, which had been voted in December, 1889; that at all times mentioned prior to March 13, 1890, there were twenty-one school districts in Salt Lake City, duly organized; that each one of said school districts owned property and owed debts, and all had levied special school taxes and had assessment valuations for 1889 and 1890 except two, which had levied no school tax at all; that in one district one and a quarter mills, in eight districts two and one-half mills, in three districts five mills, in three districts seven and one-half mills, in two districts ten mills, in one district twelve and one-half mills, on a dollar of valuation had been levied; that plaintiff owned certain lands in one district, upon which said taxes, which had been extended on the assessment roll of 1890, would be a lien that the taxes were being collected for the benefit of the new consolidated school district, and not for the school districts by which they were levied; that the taxes not being levied by any uniform rule, were void, and would be a cloud upon plaintiffs' property; that said suit was brought for plaintiffs and whomever might join; and plaintiffs prayed that the collection thereof might be enjoined. Defendants demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The statutes in force when the special school taxes were voted are sections 1915 and 1918, 1 Comp. Laws 1888, which are stated in the opinion of the court. Also section 1916 providing for the meetings to levy taxes and certifying of any rate of assessment to the county clerk; section 1917 making it the duty of county collectors to collect the tax; section 1919 which is as follows: "At the time of computing the tax in the county assessment roll, the county clerk shall compute the district school taxes of the several districts of the county, in which school taxes have been levied. The county court shall sit as a board of equalization of district school taxes, and shall equalize in the same manner as now provided by law for equalizing Territorial and county taxes." The particular sections of the Act of 1890, p. 110, Laws of Utah, 1890, were those in Article XV relating to schools in cities. Section 100, et seq., made all cities of the first and second classes one school district, with a board of education, consisting of the mayor and elected trustees to be elected in a certain manner, and organized as provided. The city treasurer was made treasurer of the board. Sections 115 and 116 provided: "that at the expiration of the school year in 1890 (July 1st), all school districts, in cities included in this act (Salt Lake City being so included), shall cease to exist, and all school district offices shall become vacant, on the organization of the board of education" (to take place before the last day of July); "that upon the election and qualification of the board of education for any city, the trustees of all school districts in said city shall convey and deliver all the school property of said districts to the board of education of said city; and the title to all such property, and all property hereafter acquired for school purposes in said city, shall be conveyed to and vest in said board of education, for the use of the district schools of said city; and all rights, claims, causes of action, to or for said property, or the use or income thereof; or for any conversion, disposition or withholding thereof or for any damage or injury thereto, shall at once vest in the board of education of said city, in trust for the use of the district schools of the city, and said board in the name aforesaid, may bring and maintain actions to recover, protect and preserve the property and rights of the district schools and to enforce any contract relating thereto, and in its said name may sue and be sued in any court of law or equity."

Section 135, same act, provided: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as intended to abate, impair or invalidate any levy of taxes or assessment therefor, which has been or is now being made in any school district or county in this territory; and all such assessments shall be continued and completed and the taxes levied shall be collected in the manner provided by law."

Sections 2028 and 2029, 1 Comp. Laws 1888, provided that all taxes including special school taxes became delinquent October 31, and that the county clerk should attach his warrant to the roll delivered to the collector, commanding him to collect the amount of taxes therein set forth, extended on the roll, so much for territorial, so much for county, and so much for school taxes, and but one roll for each year was provided for.

Reversed and remanded.

Messrs. Sutherland and Judd, attorneys for the appellants.

Mr. Robert Harkness, Mr. Parley L. Williams and Mr. Waldemar Van Cott, for the respondent Board of Education.

Mr. Walter Murphy, for the respondent Hardy.

BLACKBURN, J. MINER, J., concurred in the result. Zane, C. J., dissented.

OPINION

BLACKBURN, J.:

Up to March 13, 1890, Salt Lake City was divided into twenty-one school districts, each district having its own officers and the power to levy taxes for school purposes. The plaintiffs are tax-payers of district No. 11, as it existed up to and prior to March 13, 1890; and the trustees of said district were authorized to provide funds for the support of public schools in said district under a statute then in force, as follows: "All school taxes, whether levied by trustees or by a special meeting called for that purpose shall be computed from the valuations of the county assessment roll, and shall be levied during the month of April, 1886, and during the month of December of each year thereafter; and, within ten days after any such meeting shall have been...