Show COURT WAS IN ir ERROR t Supreme Tribunal Acknowledges r7 It lade a Mistake TAXING POWER OF TOWNS DECISION nr THE KAYSVILLE CASE REVERSED k Supreme Court Holds That It Should Rectify Its Error When It Finds That One Has Been Committed Decision Vas Rendered In the Grantsville CaseIn CaseT T t In reversing the decision of the lower court in the case of H Parley Kimball vs GrantsYilIe City et aI the supreme court yesterday practically reversed its own decision in the case of Kaysvllle vs Ellison rendered last December The two cases are similar In almost all respects In the Kaysvllle case Ellison El-lison was doing business at Layton which is within the corporate limits of Faysvllle and refused to pay a merchants mer-chants license to KaysvUle because he received no police protection or other benefits from the city The supreme court held that the town of Kaysllle had no right to tax him as he would receive no benefit from the tax In the Grantsvllle case decided yesterday yes-terday the facts showed that Mr Kim balls property lay a mile and a half from the platted and builtup portion of the city but within the corporate limits of the town which Is four and onehaif miles square He receivedno benefit from the city taxation yet a I portion of his land was taxed for the support of the city government The supreme court holds that the city had a right to sp tax his property Chief Justice Barlch is the author of the opinion which Is a most exhaustive one and goes deeplY into the law and the decisions in like cases and holds that the legislature has the power to fix the corporate limits of cities under the constitution and that the municipality munici-pality has the Dower to tax all the property within its corporate limits On the doctrine of stare decisis which the defendant Invokes the court holds that where it is manifest that the law has been erroneously decided and no material property rights or business busi-ness rules have been established thereon there-on this doctrine ought not to be applied ap-plied so as to prevent a reconsideration reconsidera-tion of the former action of the court In concluding the opinion the court says It will be noticed upon examination that the principles announced In Hays yule YR Ellison have no such support of authority as ought to prevent us from again considering the vexed questions II ques-tions and upon finding we have digressed di-gressed from returning to the true and wellbeaten path We are of the opinion lit fnt Wd ion that the tax in i question is valid and that the court erred in restraining Its collection The judgment of the lower court Is reversed Justices Miner and Baskin concur because of the provisions of the constitution con-stitution Mechanics Lien CaseIn Case-In the mechanics lien case of C E Brubaker ys J II Bennett and Clnnle Bennett the supreme court affirmed the decisIon of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff The suit was to foreclose a subcontractors subcon-tractors lien and was tried before Judge Hiles last fall The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sum cient to show a cause of action claimIng claim-Ing that the lien sued on was insuffl cient as it did not state the terms of the contract between the owner and the original contractor The demurrer was overruled and an appeal taken The court holds that the subcontractor subcontrac-tor does not contract with the owner but with the orIginal contractor and It Is the latter contract which is required Ito I-to be stated when the subcontractor claims a lien The judgment of the lower court Is therefore sustained on that point The plaintiff also appeals from the de clslon of the court below hplding that section 1400 revised statures IS a yio lation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitutibif of the United States This section provides that a lienholder If successful in his suit may recover a reasonable attorney fee The lower court refused to allow the fee on the ground that such a law discriminates against one party in favor of the other This judgment Is also affirmed The opinion Is wrItten QY Justice Bas kin Chief Justice Bartch concurs In the conclusion and Justice Miner holds I that the demurrer should have been sustained but concurs In other respects A lB 4 |