Village of Mountainhome v. Elmore County
| Decision Date | 06 January 1904 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF MOUNTAINHOME v. ELMORE COUNTY |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
ROAD TAX-CLAIM BY MUNICIPALITY-PRESENTATION-STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
1. Held, that section 1773, Revised Statutes, which provided that "The board of county commissioners must not hear or consider any claim in favor of an individual against the county unless an account properly made out, giving all items of the claim, duly verified as to its correctness, and that the amount claimed is justly due, is presented to the board within a year after the last item of the account accrued," does not apply to a municipality which claims twenty-five per cent of the road taxes collected against property situated within its corporate limits, and that such tax should be paid over by the county without the presentation of a claim therefor.
2. Where a county is by law made the instrument for the levy and collection of taxes for road purposes to be used by a municipality upon the roads and highways within its corporate limits, it is held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run against such municipality until demand is made for the payment of such taxes, or until the municipality has notice of the refusal of the county to pay the same or that it claims such money in its own right.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District Elmore County. Honorable Lyttleton Price, Judge.
Claim was presented by the village of Mountainhome against the county of Elmore for twenty-five per cent of the road taxes collected against property situated within the corporate limits of the village, and the claim was disallowed by the board of commissioners, from which order the village appealed to the district court. Judgment rendered and entered in the district court in favor of the village, from which judgment the county appealed to this court. Judgment affirmed.
Affirmed, with costs.
E. M Wolfe, for Appellant.
There are two questions involved in this appeal: 1. That is, that all claims that were not filed and presented to the board within one year after they accrued are barred under section 1605, Political Code of 1901. (See Nelson v. Merced County, 122 Cal. 644, 55 P. 421.) 2. That the claim of 1898 is barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ Proc., sec. 3132.) The court found that said road taxes were collected by the county in January of each year for the preceding year. All taxes collected more than three years prior to the date of presentation to the board are barred by the statute. We contend that this is an action based "upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture." If they have any claim at all, it is under section 1145, Political Code, and section 870, Revised Statutes of Idaho. The statute began to run at the next quarterly meeting after the taxes were collected. That it is an action upon a liability created by statute, see Higby v. Calaveras County, 18 Cal. 176. "The obligation of a county to pay its proportion of state tax is a liability created by statute." (State v. Baker County, 24 Or. 141, 33 P. 530; Bannock County v. Bell, 8 Idaho 1, 101 Am. St. Rep. 140, 65 P. 710; Canyon County v. Ada County, 5 Idaho 686, 51 P. 748.)
W. C. Howie, for Respondent.
Appellant claims: 1. That all the claims are barred by section 1605, Political Code; 2. That the claim of 1898 is barred by section 3132, Code of Civil Procedure. That these claims are not the kind of claims referred to in section 1605 is clearly shown in Genesee v. Latah Co., 4 Idaho 141, 36 P. 701, and by all the subsequent cases cited by appellant, so the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed so far as it affects the bills for 1899 and 1900. Is the claim for 1898 barred by section 3132? Let us first examine the nature of this claim in the light of the decision in Genesee v. Latah Co., supra. "The county treasurer must hold the said twenty-five per cent of the property road tax so levied and collected as money had and received for the use of said town or village, to be paid to said town or village, on proper demand." Then this money is held in the nature of an express trust. (1 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 155, and note 2; 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 1010-1014.) Again, this is not a matter as to private actions or in the nature of a private action, but as to a governmental function--the keeping up of the highways. That in express trusts the statute does not begin to run till a disavowal of the trust by demand and refusal, see Peterson v. Taylor (Cal.), 33 P. 436; Wright v. Ross, 36 Cal. 414 (); 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 187; Fremont Co. v. Brandon, 6 Idaho 482, 56 P. 264; Elmore County v. Alturas Co., 4 Idaho 145, 95 Am. St. Rep. 53, 37 P. 349; Taylor v. United States, 14 Ct. of Cl. 339; Harrison v. United States, 20 Ct. of Cl. 175; Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 68 Miss. 88, 8 So. 269.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
On July 12, 1902, the village of Mountainhome, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of this state, filed with the clerk of the board of county commissioners of Elmore county four several claims against the county for twenty-five per cent of the road taxes collected by the county for the years 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901, from property situated within the corporate limits of the village. This demand for twenty-five per cent of the road tax collected within the incorporated limits of the village was made under the provisions of subdivision 6 of section 870 of the Revised Statutes as amended February 7, 1899 (Session Laws of 1889 page 127), as construed and interpreted by this court in City of Genesee v. Latah County, 4 Idaho 141, 36 P. 701. The board of commissioners on the fifteenth day of October, 1902, allowed the claim of the village for the year 1901 and disallowed the claims for the three preceding years. This disallowance seems to have been made under the provisions of section 1773 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "The board of commissioners must not hear or consider any claim in favor of an individual against the county unless an account properly made out, giving all items of the claim, duly verified as to its correctness, and that the amount claimed is justly due, is presented to the board within a year after the last item of the account accrued." The village appealed from this order to the district court where the matter was heard by the district judge, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made, and thereupon judgment was entered in favor of the village and directing the board of commissioners to draw their warrants for the amount claimed by the village for the three years covered by its demand. From that judgment the county has appealed to this court.
The first contention made by appellant is that the village not having presented its claim under the provisions of section 1773, supra, within one year after the collection of the tax by the county, it was too late, and that an action cannot be maintained for the collection thereof. We cannot agree with this contention. In the first place the statute says that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial