Williams v. Swensen
Citation | 467 P.2d 1,93 Idaho 542 |
Decision Date | 26 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 10589,10589 |
Parties | Joe R. WILLIAMS, State Auditor of the State of Idaho, and Marjorie Ruth Moon, State Treasurer, State of Idaho, Plaintiffs, v. Rulon SWENSEN, John Bastida, Jack Barney, Board of County Commissioners for the County of Ada, Amrjorie jonasson, County Tresurer, county of Ada, and Clarence A. Planting, County Auditor, County of Ada, Defendants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Robert M. Robson, Atty. Gen., Daniel A. Slavin, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Thomas A. Frost, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff.
Ellison M. Matthews, Pros. Atty., Ada County, Boise, for defendants.
This is an original proceeding wherein plaintiffs, officers of the State, seek mandamus to compel defendants, county officers of Ada County, to remit moneys collected by them from the licensing of motor vehicles. The facts are stipulated by the parties and indicate that the various counties of the State act as agents for the licensing of certain motor vehicles (I.C. § 49-107), and that all fees collected from such licensing procedures are required to be forwarded to the state treasurer. The defendants, officers of Ada County, did license certain vehicles and during the month of November, 1969 collected certain fees therefrom, which were remitted to the treasurer of the State of Idaho, with the exception of $7,281.00. The defendant county officers refused, and continue to refuse, to remit that amount to the state treasurer contending that $7,281.00 is a 'charge for costs of collection and administration of registration of motor vehicles.'
I.C. § 40-2211, provides:
No question is raised by defendants as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this action as an original proceeding nor is there any question regarding the applicability of the extraordinary writ of mandamus as a remedy in this action.
Considering solely I.C. § 40-2211, we might presume that the issue presented herein has been disposed of in the case of State ex rel. Wright v. Headrick, 65 Idaho 148, 139 P.2d 761 (1943). The Court therein had for decision a question similar to that presented in the case at bar. In Wright the legislature had delegated to the county sheriffs the duty of examining applicants for motor vehicle drivers' licenses. The county was required to collect a fee for such examination and to remit such collected funds to the State. The counties contended that placing additional duties on the sheriff was in contravention of the Constitution and that the counties should be permitted to charge an additional fee for the issuance of drivers' licenses since the duty of providing such examinations would otherwise constitute a financial burden on the counties.
The Court rejected the first contention on the basis that Art. 18, § 11, of the Constitution clearly authorizes the legislature to impose additional duties on county offices. The Court, in response to the second contention, stated:
(Emphasis supplied)
Parenthetically we note that the legislature since State ex rel. Wright v. Headrick, supra, has changed its mind three times in the area of motor vehicle operator license fees. The statute continues to require the county sheriffs to act as examiners, I.C. § 49-317, but has now authorized a division of such fees between the county and the state. (1951 S.L., Ch. 183, p. 383; 1961 S.L., Ch. 310, p. 576; 1965 S.L., Ch. 240, p. 588.)
In the case at bar the legislature had delegated to the various counties of the State the obligation of collecting motor vehicle license fees without specific authorization to the counties to deduct therefrom a sufficient amount to compensate for their expense. While some might quarrel with the policy thus enunciated by the legislature, it is not within the province of the judiciary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nelson v. Marshall
...that where a statute is susceptible to a constitutional construction, that construction must be adopted. See, e. g., Williams v. Swensen, 93 Idaho 542, 467 P.2d 1 (1970); Rich v. Williams, 81 Idaho 311, 341, P.2d 432 Our determination that the trial court erred in deleting the words 'in spe......
-
V-1 Oil Co. v. Idaho Petroleum Clean Water Trust Fund, V-1
...vehicle fuels to any purpose other than construction, repair, maintenance, and supervision of public highways. Williams v. Swensen, 93 Idaho 542, 544, 467 P.2d 1, 3 (1970) ("The plain meaning of Art. 7, § 17 of the Constitution is that all moneys collected from the enumerated sources must b......