Refsnes v. Oglesby, Civil 3881
Decision Date | 16 November 1937 |
Docket Number | Civil 3881 |
Citation | 50 Ariz. 494,73 P.2d 90 |
Parties | J. E. REFSNES, SIMS ELY, Jr., and PAUL D. BECK, Copartners, Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of REFSNES, ELY, BECK & COMPANY, Appellants, v. ED OGLESBY, Treasurer of Maricopa County, C. WARREN PETERSON, as Chairman, and JOHN A. FOOTE and GEORGE FRYE, as Members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, and MARICOPA COUNTY, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, for Appellants.
Mr Harry Johnson, County Attorney, and Mr. Mark Wilmer, his Deputy, for Appellees.
This is an appeal by J. E. Refsnes, Sims Ely, Jr., and Paul D Beck, copartners doing business as Refsnes, Ely, Beck & Company, hereinafter called plaintiffs, from a judgment of the superior court in favor of Ed Oglesby, as treasurer of Maricopa county, C. Warren Peterson, John A. Foote, and George Frye, as members of the board of supervisors of said county, and the county in its corporate capacity, hereinafter called defendants, determining that the latter should not use the proceeds of the 1936-37 taxes to pay a certain warrant of the county owned by defendants and issued and registered during the year 1932-33, until and unless all obligations budgeted and incurred during the year 1936-37 had been satisfied.
The case was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, whereupon this appeal was taken.
The sole question before us is, of course, whether the court properly applied the law to the facts agreed upon, and we state these facts, together with such other facts material to the question of which we may take judicial notice, as follows:
Since the year 1901, sections 775 and 776, Revised Code 1928, have appeared in substantially the same form in our law. These sections read as follows:
In accordance therewith, for many years it has been the custom of Maricopa county to divide its receipts among certain special funds established in accordance with the above sections, one of these being known as the "expense fund," and to pay all obligations properly chargeable against any particular fund from the money apportioned to that fund, and no other. If for any reason, an obligation was charged against a certain fund and when it was due there was no money in such fund, it was the custom of the supervisors to follow the provisions of section 867, Revised Code 1928, which reads as follows:
Whenever, either in the current fiscal year or at later times, the particular fund on which the warrant was drawn was replenished, the warrants drawn against it were paid from such fund in the order of their presentation, regardless of whether the money with which they were paid was the proceeds of taxes for the year in which the warrant was drawn, or came from any other source, including taxes of subsequent years. This the supervisors did, believing they were following the provisions of section 869, Revised Code 1928, which reads as follows:
(Italics ours.)
For many years the legislature of Arizona has been endeavoring to compel the various counties and municipalities to keep their current expenses within their current receipts, and in the year 1921 it adopted what is commonly known as the "budget law," being chapter 52, Regular Session Fifth Legislature. We shall discuss the principal provisions of this law in a later portion of our opinion. In the fiscal year 1932-33, in an attempt to follow the provisions of that law, the board of supervisors of Maricopa county duly budgeted an amount to take care of the obligation involved in this action, and levied a tax which, if paid in its entirety,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maricopa County v. Southern Pacific Company
... ... SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee Civil No. 4643Supreme Court of ArizonaOctober 15, 1945 [162 P.2d 620] ... Bank v. Herron et al., 46 Ariz. 71, 47 P.2d ... 430; Refsnes v. Oglesby, 50 Ariz. 494, 73 ... P.2d 90; Board of Supervisors v. Miners ... ...
-
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County
...existing law was not changed by the revision unless it clearly appeared that such was the intent of the legislature. Refsnes v. Oglesby, 50 Ariz. 494, 73 P.2d 90 [1937]. In 'Preliminary Provisions' to the 1901 Penal Code, it was provided in § 4 'The provisions of this code, so far as they a......
-
City of Tucson v. Tucson Sunshine Climate Club, 4792
...an amount more than sufficient to meet the total expenditures. This is fully in accordance with the views heretofore expressed in Refsnes v. Oglesby, supra. The judgment is void as validating expenditures where no money is available for payment. The judgment is affirmed. ...
-
O'Connell v. Frost
... ... ROGERS BROS., in the County of Navajo, State of Arizona, Appellees Civil No. 3851Supreme Court of ArizonaNovember 16, 1937 ... APPEAL ... ...