State ex rel. Perkins v. Board of Commissioners of Sheridan Co.

Decision Date15 December 1897
Citation7 Wyo. 161,51 P. 204
PartiesSTATE, EX REL. PERKINS v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SHERIDAN CO. ET AL
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

RESERVED QUESTIONS from the District Court for Sheridan County, HON. JOSEPH L. STOTTS, Judge.

Mandamus to compel the levy of a tax. The facts which prevented a decision upon the questions reserved are stated in the opinion.

Cause remanded.

W. S Metz, for relator.

J. F Hoop, for the defendant County.

N. K Griggs, and Burke & Fowler, for the intervenor, the G. I. & N.W. R. R. Co.

POTTER, CHIEF JUSTICE. CORN, J., concurs.

OPINION

POTTER, CHIEF JUSTICE.

The relator seeks by this action a mandamus to compel the levy of a special tax in Sheridan County in excess of the levy of twelve mills for county revenue, or the issue of county bonds for the purpose of paying a judgment secured by the relator against the county upon certain warrants issued during the years 1893, 1894, and 1895. The petition alleges that the warrants were duly issued upon valid and legal debts of the county, duly created by the commissioners within the constitutional limit of county indebtedness, and within the tax levy for the current year; and that the indebtedness evidenced by said warrants and judgment did not, at any time, and does not now, together with all the other valid indebtedness of the county, exceed the constitutional limit. It is also alleged that in the creation of the debt aforesaid the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State had been complied with. That the moneys received from the collection of taxes, assessed during each year, in which said warrants were issued, were wrongfully applied to the payment of prior warrants issued under the territorial regime, and that there is no money in the county treasury to pay the same.

The county filed its answer. The Grand Island and Northern Wyoming Railroad Company applied for leave to intervene and defend on the ground that it was a large tax payer in the county, and its interests would be injuriously affected if the mandamus prayed for should be granted. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the petition for intervention. Upon a hearing the district court denied the motion to dismiss, allowed the petition for intervention, and ordered that the railroad company be made a party defendant, to which the plaintiff excepted.

The intervenor thereupon filed an answer, and subsequently upon leave granted, an amended answer. That answer denies every allegation of the petition not therein admitted, and specifically alleges that the warrants included in relator's judgment were issued in excess of the twelve mills levied upon the taxable property of said county for the current expenses of the county for the several years in which the warrants were respectively issued; that they were issued without authority of law; that twelve mills had already been levied in the county for the current year, and a special levy as prayed for will be in excess of that rate.

The material and essential allegations of the petition are therefore denied, and an issue of fact is clearly and unmistakable raised and presented by the pleadings. The relator, however, filed a motion for judgment in his favor upon the pleadings, and also a motion to strike the petition in intervention and answer of the intervenor from the files. Thereupon the district court ordered that certain important and difficult questions arising in said cause be reserved to this court for its decision. Such questions generally bear upon the authority and power of a county under certain stated conditions, to make a special levy in excess of twelve mills, to pay a judgment rendered upon county warrants issued for current expenses. The ninth question asks, whether the judgment mentioned in plaintiff's petition is not a part of the public debt of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Claus v. Farmers & Stockgrowers State Bank
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 22 de dezembro de 1936
    ...through their efforts of December 28th. Love v. Robinson, 78 A. L. R. 609; 60 C. J. 713. The judgment should be for defendants. State v. Board, 7 Wyo. 161, 1 Code Pleadings, 922. Plaintiff has been fairly dealt with. Fincannon v. First National Bank, 271 P. 641; Hays Co. v. Wilde, 57 P.2d 1......
  • In re Gillette Daily Journal
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 3 de maio de 1932
    ... ... (4th ... Ed.) 393, 46 C. J. 27; State v. Trenton, 54 N. J. L ... 444. A local law is ... N.W. 808; Davies v. Board, (Mich.) 50 N.W. 864; ... Blaces v. Water ... 12 C. J. 924; State v ... Sheridan, 25 Wyo. 347, 56 L. R. A. 558, 50 L. R. A. 519, ... v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 102; ... State ex rel. v. Ross, 31 Wyo. 500. Other cases ... proceedings of a board of county commissioners. The ... legislature doubtless could dispense ... ...
  • Simpkin v. City of Rock Springs
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 18 de junho de 1925
    ... ... Adams, ... (Nebr.) 99 N.W. 681-684; State v. Huston, ... (Okla.) 113 P. 190; Friendly v ... 100; In Re ... Sanitary Board, 111 P. 368; Mackaneny v. Board, ... 134 N.E ... ...
  • State v. Bolln
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 12 de setembro de 1902
    ...some hypothetical question, or a question which it was anticipated might arise in the future. (Stoll v. Board, 6 Wyo., 231; State ex rel. v. Board, 7 Wyo., 161.) important or difficult question reserved must necessarily be understood to be an important or difficult question of law, else the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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