Zimmerman v. Board of Com'rs of Routt County

• Decision Date: 07 April 1919
• Docket Number: 9336.
• Citation: 180 P. 305,66 Colo. 160
• Parties: ZIMMERMAN v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF ROUTT COUNTY.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

180 P. 305

66 Colo. 160

ZIMMERMAN v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF ROUTT COUNTY.

No. 9336.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 7, 1919

Department 3.

Error to District Court, Routt County; John T. Shumate, Judge.

Action by E. H. Zimmerman against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Routt. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Joseph K. Bozard, of Steamboat Springs, for plaintiff in error.

C. R Monson, of Steamboat Springs, for defendant in error.

ALLEN J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error against the board of county commissioners of the county of Routt to recover upon a contract for services in transcribing such of the tax rolls of Routt county as affect lands in Moffat county. The amended complaint recites the facts hereinafter noted. A demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained by the trial court. The plaintiff brings error.

The county of Moffat was created by the General Assembly in 1911 by chapter 173, p. 516, Session Laws 1911. A certain part of Routt county was set apart for this purpose. In the same act provision was made for making a transcript of the records of Routt county of all property situated in Moffat county, and transcribing the same in the proper record books to be provided by the county of Moffat. It was further provided that----

'The cost of transcribing said records shall be paid by the counties of Routt and Moffat in the proportion that the assessed valuation of Routt county bears to the assessed valuation of Moffat county.'

In 1913 the General Assembly passed an act, the purpose of which is as stated in its title, as follows 'An act to deliver to Moffat county, the taxes prior to the year A. D. 1911 upon all property personal and real which was situated in the boundaries of Moffat county, at the time of its assessment or levy for taxes was made thereon in full settlement between the counties of Routt and Moffat, of all unpaid taxes and authorizing the county treasurer of Moffat county, to collect all such taxes to issue redemption certificates of lands sold for taxes and to isssue treasurer's deeds or tax deeds for all lands embraced within the territory of said Moffat county to those entitled thereto.' Chapter 155, p. 601, S. L. 1913.

Section 1 of this act provides that:

'The county of Moffat shall let a contract for the transcribing of that portion of all tax rolls * * * for the year prior to 1911 or so much thereof as Moffat county may desire to be transcribed, the property of which either personal or real, was situate in the territory now embraced in the county of Moffat, at the date of its assessment. * * *'

The expression 'year prior to 1911,' found in the body of the act, must be construed as if it read 'years prior to 1911,' for only in this way can the legislative intent be carried out. The title of the act uses the expression 'prior to the year A. D. 1911,' and further on in the body of the act reference is made to 'a full settlement of all taxes prior to the year A. D. 1911.' It was the evident intention of the Legislature to enable Moffat county to receive all the uncollected taxes levied within its present territorial limits prior to the year 1911, instead of only those remaining uncollected on property assessed during the year 1910 or 'year prior to 1911.'

Pursuant to the act of 1913, above mentioned, the county of Moffat let the contract, sued on in the instant case, to the plaintiff in error. The contract provided that the plaintiff in error should transcribe certain tax rolls of Routt county, not only for the year 1910, but also for the years 1907, 1908, and 1909. Under our construction of the statute, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, no objection can be made to the amended complaint, or to the contract in question, because it related to transcribing tax rolls for other years prior to 1911 than the year 1910 alone.

The contract involved in this controversy, which was let by Moffat county to the plaintiff in error, provided that the county of Routt should pay a part of the expenses of transcribing the tax rolls. It is upon this part of the contract that plaintiff in error brought this action against the county of Routt. It is contended by the defendant in error that the statute does not authorize the county of Moffat to render the county of Routt liable to any third party, or bind it by a contract, for...