Town of Springfield v. People's Deposit Bank

• Decision Date: 31 May 1901
• Citation: 111 Ky. 105,63 S.W. 271
• Parties: TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD v. PEOPLE'S DEPOSIT BANK. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

63 S.W. 271

111 Ky. 105

TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD v. PEOPLE'S DEPOSIT BANK. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the town of Springfield against the People's Deposit Bank to recover taxes. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

I. H Thurman and J. W. S. Clements, for appellant.

W. C McChord, for appellee.

O'REAR J.

Appellant town of Springfield, Ky. is a town of the sixth class, and brings this suit against appellee to recover taxes alleged to have been assessed against its property, in common with other property in that town, for the year 1894. It appears that those acting as members of the board of trustees had failed to provide a regular place of meeting of the board, and had been in the habit of meeting at the law office of Mr. Thurman, their legal adviser. On the 15th day of February they met in special session at the saloon of one Green, who was a member of the board of trustees, having been called into that extra session by the clerk of the board. The chairman of the board was not present; whereupon R. B. Curry, one of its members, was chosen president pro tem. The board, as then constituted, passed the following order: "February 15, 1894. At a meeting of the board of trustees held at the saloon of John F. Green, in said town, there were present R. B. Curry, John F. Green, and Robert Noe. A. C. Cunningham, the chairman, not being present, R. B. Curry was elected chairman pro tem. Ordered that the levy for town taxes for the year 1894 be 40 cents on each $100.00 of property in said town, and one dollar poll tax for town purposes. The meeting then adjourned." One of the trustees, by permission of his associates, undertook to and did assess the property of the town for the fiscal year, but without being elected or qualified as assessor. Nor was a board of equalization appointed after the assessments to pass upon complaints of taxpayers. Other objections were urged to the levy and attempted collection by appellant, but the foregoing we deem sufficient to notice.

The circuit court adjudged the levy and assessments insufficient and we think correctly so. The place and manner of the meeting at which the levy ordinance was adopted was not in conformity to law, nor was the assessment. On this last point, Judge Cooley, in his work on Taxation, says (pages 352-354): "Necessity for...