OCR Text |
Show tV'r. T!;,. r . -- Tile- - f.'lClIliit T. Ji.m, w. 2k' - "'CO -- , w Ji , Glf-JiOtlr.- i A:- ('! Ld J JJ(.0 b, i - il.r'. 'i J i "i'-- "-f- Vj e"' . j i t). - 'l v h?- - iNi.crtr I II H ,f Itn.tes Telephone raph t a Cun-pun- rpur.ilion; Mountain FueJ Supply Company, a corporation; nd Utah T'ower & Light Company, J;- - l - i t ;i v. . ( r.i i : - j 4l',v ... iiiiJ r , THl'KSDAY. Airr.lIST h it The Supreme Court Of The Slale Of Ulali u . r. 1 - 'laintiffs- an 1 1 - Appellant?, FILED -- .r !. V No. 123 lO rpn ii August 3, 1971 r OmieT?j inv J It . A . .f w ,! J . y - '? L'l'jf' ".if" ..w r i 1,1 1 j1. I i L ooL i 'f l , " i.A "J ( , rx p. I 7 ,'wlwt - ! i booy corporate and the iav-- i of the State ji , - : i ; : r L. M. Cummings, Clerk h, ,. and .esponderit. id.'int . y ; . ' !!' - i j'" ns fr wU4 Wi A J f ta A fOf.f JUVi'-- J.- - Justice; L c. , - ';' c. '.1 ..'r. : .. 'j V - plaintiffs filed their complaint in the court below seeking a decree lanni. ihat certain taxing ordinances adopted by the defendant city are i alid. ir-- c. i matter was submitted to the district court on an agreed statement those pertinent and necessary to an understanding of the case ilov.-s; The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company opef- -' ' phou? system in Ogln City and elsewhere. Mountain Fuel Supply i' operate-- , a as supply i. system in Ogden City and elsewhere. Utah ;gh: Company operates an electrical power system in Ogden City. ar..1 '.ise'.vhero. At prior times the defendant Ogden City by separate ordinances franchises to each of the plaintiffs for periods of 25 to 50 years, !,?a ordinance granting the franchises provided that the plaintiffs were to pay me 'wo jv r cent of the utility gross revenue derived front sales within iiv li .Lf;. Each ordinance contained a provision setting forth that such ' .vir t'c's '..ere "m lieu" of all other taxes, charges and impositions upon the re rv.!' "i uiilify company. The plaintiffs accepted the terms of the fran-i-'- : v iff t. '' . nd i ! r L v. i rn.v-tu- - : - :i. ''r hi- : i, V - j'.i . ! i uYl'yr -'j ' ; J - - iiO i , I 'V io ?r:!' . "J-l- .; 'f I,, I V. i i.min.Mi.-er-t V. th- :i,' j 'd'. 4 '''iuh - J - j - , c. , v - ira . Ji j i plaintiffs but not upon the other iln.- - imposed upon ' tax- - r.'lamtjffs ottarK the vai'ciity fd tho ordinance upon two ground:.; granted b1, tlie city m irn- plaintiffs and the acceptance of ' if ' thereof by the plaintiffs formed contracts, and that the lvy of axes in violation cf the "in lieu" provisions of the contracts im-- . ll I;... Jigaticn of each contract in violation of the provisions of the he United States and :'i? Constitution oi Utah; (2) the revenue i;i that it apr.lic-- i to ;;io plaintiffs and is therefore .ov i "iJi'.'j lc,'r.R, ta,c ' : . lime specified in each. -- ' , 1, t ' i the- - the city adopted an ordinance which imposed an of each !;'v the plaintiffs which provided for an additional gainst !;t OL the fjross revenue of each plaintiff. A subsequent ordinance addiLionai tax. - I .. within . - Jfl I' - i.. i.W'T . lyij i J . I ; : ' . f, ' .. - L f.r-r-- -- ' r. i'' : 1' f. .! lyo ;L-- 4c that he subsequent plairvff;. ;;rsi of OyUen C'ty impn-.-mthe (.'oligations i the prior con-;- vd t fa with whether or not probJc.-- ,.f Iotern-.iniruli.u i'.zed to enter into -- oi l ran ts which would limit the city's ay,d collect taxes. At ti." outset we rr.ust make a deterrr.ina- ' ' ...'t . t; r the Constitution and statutes of Utah give a municipality the rrtcr aviv its power t raise revenue by taxation. Cities are t ;i legislature .t i ' au :( rcis e no power '.:vs except that granted. whelh.-i:t dot" rii.i Ogden Citv was expressly granted the right '.!- -: into ir.f: "m lieu" provi s inn.-- c.f the ordinances granting to the plain- -' r 'iiif l.i es tf. carry on Ih-- services within the limits of the n - Li If o i'O to ol i'.i: J Kv.i .i .riv r JU; ..a b.r, Ar.fr-.- , .. L,-- Auto tfj; , .. f'r - r ?J., t hf.r; i.d'1f'1- - ) t- -. 7,4 fc - l !;.' j... ! r.' .I vi' i l,w' w j,.. . oi..'tor' J -- -- n . : . s v ' ' . - J'; -st " ' 's i . . ; . . i . ' r.j: t. - r. Kt.k V ilt'.L.'i? ir - c J ' 'ari-- .M , L;Jw: f. ; i . J-- specific . .. . ' - . .. .!- -. titution r.or the statutes deal- reir. called our attention to any y t gra t the franchises must emanate, Si- on J( - L U. C. A. 1953, which pro- j, i 1 it h,u vf ' t, leetri1; iigr.t r.- 1 tij.-- . - same tv . tTi - iu : ( .. . i v.tii-K- or a.uthor'.e .he .v;i -.i a. L-- a : - lyerate waterworks, lines or street on, . ','iir.tenance aii 1 i:.. i i'll. ; n'l ' tl-.- uy ' if f o s . statute cent. e an ., i'l O, rcvi-n- i - b-- i .. .... ..i ai-.- ! r : of aut'nority to the city to enter only other statute dealing with the U. C. A. 1953, which pro- - vying and collecting a tux busin. fin lot oi .:, .vii'nin the limits of the any the sau.e b;. inn nance; All sicii i. r'gulatu m . shall be imif t" iri resper! -i thu they Crf' imi.'i.-nM1- . up !! raise i. in-;-- .'act dealing with tiic.-Li-i :i. civs to levy taxes is Secticn n-.- . f pr- e ; ' r;. - j r i ;.c-s.- ,pc ;1 icldrodal ii-- ,;uu .isf s, nor h im I r.e :o.i power "t lr,r provisions .,f i. odf -- . .. 'Lu o f r., ri:,' - w I ot ;Li. 7 j'r. - -. JU; I? l . .Sl.d i 2'.;. V : !.a-,.- ; '- vi-ir- "d rm language in ti c. sta'utc- - above referred to jru quoted which i lucd r. - n grant of pi we r In tue city to eiitcr into a contract which ' ,jr c o r po iv i i o:"i f n m the payu'.e.i t of tax- -, tliereafter ,o !" i p. riuf! years. Tbcru being no grant of authority on ti t: part of nii-i i." !' into ;o "in lieu" provisions of the franchises, we a ;. compelled t. .1 tlicre- in t timsc provisiems were huyoud tlie powers of the. iit f' r :iva:i. i U'-- 1 : r i t't , '. .' I; , ! -- J1 J i; , - t J.' v.ry V. ' , 1 , . ; y ? Vi "7".- ! i - i' 't A. a second assignment of error the plaintiffs contend that I!..- ordinance .idditimiHl tax tn businesses supplying te.lephoiie, ga.s o by lew its.', ctric eiiergv servile is a discritumalory classification and applies only to (he plaintiff .. The plaintiffs urge the view that the tax applies only to a srn dl group of which fall within the classification of public utilities. Other public etil it. '. such as coii.u:on carriers of passengers, freight or cargo arc not in- i :u de ordinance. The plaintiffs comprise a distinct class of ii.ai.n- ,n.-- within the public utility field wliicb supplies to the public a service 1 . $ i jl ' r , 1 - i . '.'"f- oO . r ;: (. il.uli is r Il'.isuim d or used by the public. We therefore conclude that ord nance whul. classifies plaintiffs ns a separate class of ouhlic Cuntinufil 11 ;jfc; . I Sm V'T if Y JlJrf I n paiir 5 5, 1971 |