Yankton County v. Board of County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 20 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 5063-5065. |
| Parties | YANKTON COUNTY v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS et al. LARSON v. SAME. MUNKVOLD v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF YANKTON COUNTY. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; R. B. Tripp, Judge.
Appeals by Yankton County on demand of seven taxpayers, and by Gilbert Larson from action of the Board of County Commissioners, undertaking to lease with option to purchase property held by Sanford G. Donaldson, Receiver of the Yankton County Breeders' Association & Sales Company, and an appeal by John H. Munkvold from a tax levy of said Board of County Commissioners. From judgment of the circuit court restraining the levy of said tax and purchase of said property, the Receiver and the Board appeal. Affirmed.
A. L Wyman and Clark & Henderson, all of Yankton, for appellants.
Howard Warren, of Yankton, Charles H. Dillon, of Pierre, and Miller & Mitchell, of Mitchell, for respondents.
Chapter 169, Laws 1921, reads as follows:
On September 6, 1921, the board of county commissioners of Yankton county (hereinafter called "the board") levied a tax of 3/10 of a mill on each dollar of taxable property in said county "in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of chapter 169 of the Session Laws of South Dakota for 1921." On September 15, 1921, John H. Munkvold, a taxpayer, freeholder, and resident of said county appealed therefrom to the circuit court. On September 12, 1921, the board directed the chairman and county auditor to enter into a lease with option to purchase a certain building and ground from Sanford G. Donaldson, receiver of the Yankton County Breeders' Association & Sales Company at the price of $38,000. On the next day the state's attorney of said county appealed therefrom to the circuit court in the name of Yankton county, pursuant to the written demand of seven taxpayers. Rev. Code 1919, § 5886. On September 27, 1921 Gilbert Larson, a taxpayer, freeholder, and resident of Yankton county, and a stockholder of said breeders' association, appealed from said last-mentioned act of the board to the circuit court. Said three appeals came on for trial before the circuit court. Testimony was taken, and by one set of findings of fact and conclusions of law and one judgment the trial court restrained the levy of said tax and the purchase of said property from the receiver. Among other things the court found that 3/10 of a mill levy would produce $14,022.41; that at the time of such levy Yankton county did not own any ground upon which a building could be erected for the purposes mentioned in chapter 169, Laws 1921; that the proposed levy was made for the express purpose of buying said property from the receiver; that it would require some $3,000 or $4,000 in excess of said sum of $38,000 to complete said building; that the board had not sought to comply with chapter 144, Laws 1919; that the expenditure for said property was greater than could be paid out of the annual revenue of the county for the current year; and that no effort had been made by the board to submit such expenditure to a vote of the electors. The board and the receiver have appealed from the judgment.
Appellants do not argue the merits, but challenge chiefly the jurisdiction of the circuit court to entertain said appeals from the decisions of the board. They say that while section 5886, Rev. Code 1919, purports to authorize an appeal "from all decisions of the board of county commissioners upon matters properly before it," yet that it is only in the case of matters that are judicial or quasi-judicial in character that an appeal is allowable. They say that the levying of taxes is not a judicial function. They cite Wood v. Bangs, 1 Dak. 179, 46 N.W. 586; Pierre Waterworks Co. v. Hughes County, 5 Dak. 145, 37 N.W. 733; Champion v. Board, 5 Dak. 416, 41 N.W. 739; People v. Mayor, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266; In re First Nat. Bank, 25 N.D. 635, 146 N.W. 1064, L. R. A. 1915C, 386; 26 R. C. L. 27, 31; and 37 Cyc. 964.
Whatever may be said as to the right of appeal from the tax levy, we are entirely satisfied that an appeal lay...
To continue reading
Request your trial