Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake County

• Decision Date: 08 September 1922
• Docket Number: 3853
• Citation: 209 P. 207,60 Utah 423
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: SALT LAKE CITY v. SALT LAKE COUNTY et al

209 P. 207

60 Utah 423

SALT LAKE CITY v. SALT LAKE COUNTY et al

No. 3853

Supreme Court of Utah

September 8, 1922

Petition by Salt Lake City for a writ of mandamus against Salt Lake County, Jamer H. Sullivan, county Auditor, and Joseph Wirthline and others, as Commissioners.

ORDERED THAT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ISSUE AS PRAYED FOR.

William H. Folland, City Atty., and Horace H. Smith and Shirley P Jones, Asst. City Attys., all of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Arthur E. Moreton, Co. Atty., and George G. Armstrong, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Salt Lake City, for defendants.

CORFMAN C. J. WEBER and THURMAN, JJ., concur. FRICK, J., and GIDEON, J., not participating.

OPINION

CORFMAN, C. J.

The plaintiff, Salt Lake City, filed herein its petition, praying for a peremptory writ of mandate to issue out of this court, directing and requiring the defendant James H. Sullivan, as the duly qualified and acting county auditor of Salt Lake county, to extend upon the tax rolls of said county for the year 1922 a tax levy as made and certified to by the plaintiff city, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 2, tit. 106, Comp. Laws Utah 1917.

Section 6102, in said chapter, provides that during the month of July of each year the city commissioners, in cities of the first class, at a regular meeting, shall by ordinance or resolution, make a levy, within certain limitations, on the real and personal property within the city made taxable by law. It is then provided by section 6103 of said chapter that the rate and levy shall be certified to the county auditor of the county in which the city is situated, and by section 6105 it is further provided that the tax shall be extended by the county auditor upon the general tax rolls, which, in this instance, it is alleged by the plaintiff's petition that the auditor, acting under the direction of the other defendants as county commissioners for Salt Lake county, fails and refuses to do.

The answer of the defendants in substance and effect admits that the county auditor, while acting under and by direction of the county commissioners, refuses to extend upon the general tax rolls the levy so made by plaintiff pursuant to said section 6102 of the statutes, and, as grounds therefor, alleges that said section was and is now void and of no effect, for the reason that it contravenes certain provisions of our state Constitution, and is contrary to the provisions of section 671 of Comp. Laws Utah 1917, as amended by chapter 13 of the Session Laws of Utah of 1919, and chapter 14 of the Session Laws of Utah of 1921.

There is no controversy over the facts. The sole question to be determined by this court is whether or not the city, in making the tax levy for the year 1922, should have proceeded under the provisions of section 671, rather than under the provisions of section 6102, the section under which the city made the levy. Said section 6102 was enacted by the Legislature of 1917, and was entitled "An act relating to and fixing maximum annual tax levies in cities of the first class" (chapter 128, Laws Utah 1917). It is contended by the defendants: (1) That the section as originally passed by the Legislature contravened the provisions of section 26 of article 6 of our state Constitution, prohibiting, among other things, the enactment of any special law changing or amending the charter of any city, and that no special law shall be enacted where a general law can be applicable; (2) that it contravenes the provisions of section 22 of article 6 of our state Constitution, which provides that "no law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only, but the act as revised, or section as amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length"; (3) that it contravenes the provisions of section 23 of article 6 of our state Constitution, providing that "no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

It is apparent that section 6102, as originally passed by the Legislature, was dealing with a particular subject or matter that of levying taxes upon property situated in cities of the first class. Salt Lake City, at the time of the enactment of this section, by reason of its population, had been created or designated as a city of the first class by act of the Legislature pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of article 11 of our state Constitution. It was thereby placed in a class by itself. The power of the Legislature to classify cities according to population is expressly conferred under the state Constitution in the section last referred to. Salt Lake City having thus been created a city of the first class, the question arises as to whether or not the provisions of section 6102 offend against section 26 of article 6 of the Constitution prohibiting the enactment of a...