Walters v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 11 October 1892
• Parties: Walters v. Richardson, Sheriff.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

20 S.W. 279

93 Ky. 374

Walters v. Richardson, Sheriff.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 11, 1892

Appeal from court of common pleas, Estill county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by J. F. Walters against S. P. Richardson, sheriff of Estill county, to enjoin defendant from collecting taxes assessed against plaintiff. From a judgment overruling plaintiff's demurrer to the answer, he appeals. Reversed.

Pryor J.

During the session of the legislature for the years 1889 and 1890 an act was passed entitled an "Act to define the county line of Estill county." The recital of that act shows that the citizens of that county were unable, by reason of the uncertainty as to the location of the boundary line, to know whether they were the citizens of Estill or some other county, and then the act proceeds to define the boundary line in such a specific mode as to remove all doubt as to the true boundary line. The title of the act, and all the steps following the title, show it to be a valid enactment, and subject to no constitutional objection. The legislation is authorized by the title, for the act clearly defines the boundary of Estill county. It is claimed, however, that the title is misleading and deceptive, because, upon the agreed facts, the legislature, instead of defining a boundary that was uncertain, abandoned the uncertain boundary, and so changed the line as to take 160 voters from the county of Estill, and included them within the territory of the county of Powell, an adjoining county, and with these citizens taxable property of the value of $175,000 was transferred from the county of Estill to the county of Powell. The question originated in this manner: The sheriff of Estill county, disregarding the legislative enactment of 1890 defining the boundary of that county, endeavored to collect the taxes of a taxpayer who had been included within the county of Powell, by the act of 1890, and his property assessed in Estill county as if no change in the boundary had been made. The taxpayer enjoined the sheriff of Estill from coercing payment in that way, insisting that he owed his allegiance to Powell county, and not to Estill. The sheriff in answer to the petition of the citizen, (the plaintiff,) set up the fact that, although the legislative act upon its face was regular and proper, the title of the act had been departed from, and, in stead of defining an uncertain boundary, the boundary of Estill had been greatly diminished and that of Powell greatly enlarged; that the boundary line had been changed, and at least 160 voters taken from the one county and added to the other. A demurrer was filed by the plaintiff to the answer, and overruled, and, the plaintiff electing to stand by the demurrer, a judgment was rendered in favor of the sheriff, directing him to collect the tax, upon the ground that the act under which the change of boundary was made was...