Raynolds v. Swope
| Citation | 207 P. 581,28 N.M. 141 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 2627.,2627. |
| Parties | RAYNOLDSv.SWOPE, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Taxes levied in a county for school maintenance are county taxes, levied for a public purpose under constitutional authority, and violate neither the principle that the proceeds of taxes levied in one district cannot be used in another, nor section 4 of article 12 of the Constitution.
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Hickey, Judge.
Action by J. M. Raynolds against E. B. Swope, as Treasurer of Bernalillo County, N. M., and the Bernalillo County Board of Education, and from a judgment on demurrer dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Taxes levied in a county for school maintenance are county taxes, levied for a public purpose under constitutional authority, and violate neither the principle that the proceeds of taxes levied in one district cannot be used in another, nor Section 4 of Article 12 of the Constitution.
A. B. McMillen and Lawrence F. Lee, both of Albuquerque, for appellant.
H. S. Bowman, Atty. Gen., for appellees.
By what is known as the County Unit Law (chapter 79, Laws 1915, and chapter 105, Laws 1917), the Legislature adopted a new method of collecting and distributing taxes for school purposes. This proceeding attacks section 43 of the 1917 law as being contrary to the principle that one district or class may not be taxed for the benefit of another district or class, which appellant says is a fundamental principle of taxation, and specifically because it is in conflict with section 4, of article 12, of the Constitution.
Under the system created by these acts schools and school districts are divided into two classes, municipal and rural. The municipal schools are under the control and management of the municipal boards of education. The rural schools are conducted and managed by county boards of education and boards of directors in each school district. The municipal boards of education and the directors in the rural school districts each year prepare a budget, or estimate, of the financial needs of their district. The municipal estimates go direct to the county commissioners. The rural estimates are submitted for approval to the county superintendent of schools, who passes upon them, and, if approved, submits them also to the county commissioners. The commissioners, thus having before them the estimates of the amount of money necessary for all of the schools within the county, municipal and rural, pass upon them, and then levy a flat tax upon all of the property in the county sufficient, with other revenues not involved in this proceeding, to maintain the schools for the ensuing year in accordance with the approved estimates. The moneys derived from this tax are credited to the districts in accordance with these estimates. It will be observed that under this basis of distribution there is no relation between the tax collected in any one district and the revenue apportioned to it. Some districts receive more than the amount contributed from the taxable property within their boundaries and others less. Unless the funds are divided among the districts in accordance with the tax-paying property in each, this is the inevitable result. A disribution, for instance, according to the number of children of school age in each district, or according to enrollment or attendance, would create the same situation as that here complained of.
Appellant is a taxpayer within the municipal district of Albuquerque. He alleges that a large portion of the taxes collected from him and the other taxpayers within that district under the county levy will be distributed to other districts, and therefore in effect that he is taxed for the benefit of districts in which he has no interest. An injunction was asked restraining the county treasurer from paying to the county board of education any portion of the levy collected within the Albuquerque district, and the court was asked to declare section 43 of chapter 105, Laws 1917, unconstitutional. The complaint was dismissed on demurrer, and this appeal taken.
The contention of appellant, tersely stated, is that each school district must be a self-supporting unit, maintaining its schools exclusively from its own resources. The position is not based upon constitutional or statutory authority, but upon the general principles that one district may not be taxed for the benefit of another. Appellant's brief cites decisions and text-writers to the effect that levies for the benefit of a city may not be made on property outside of the city, and, conversely, in one case, that town property may not be taxed for the benefit of persons not residing in it. The fallacy in the entire argument lies in the fact that we do not have here taxation of one district for the benefit of another. The tax is not a district tax. It is a county tax, levied equally and uniformly upon all the taxable property in the county. We are not dealing with a special tax levied against the property in one district, the proceeds of which are used in another. A levy by the county for the carrying on of education is certainly for a public purpose. It is difficult to see how a county tax, levied for a public purpose, under distinct legislative authority, imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Esquibel
...in the county. It is a general county tax, not levied by districts, but spread generally, over all taxable property. Raynolds v. Swope, 28 N.M. 141, 207 P. 581. The location and identity of the property is a question for the trier of the facts. The school district need not have been placed ......