| OCR Text |
Show 5UPIEE CeUilii MS JUO Oil CJ1TS LEVY Opinon Wa Written ty Chief Justice Corfman and Concurred In by Associates; As-sociates; Law If Defined Ths county auditor of Bait LaV county Is not justified In refusing to extend upon th genera'l tax roll th tax lvy as certified to by Bait Lak City In conformity with section 1101, compiled laws of Utah. HIT. It la therefore ordered that th peremptory writ of mandate b laaued as prared for, each party to pay It ewe oia ' This I th written opinion of th supreme court, an oral opinion having btn ln by th court heretofore. In to esse of th city of Bait Lak against th county of Belt lk. ...,1 th board of county commissioners in the application of the city fir a writ of mandate to compel the county mi-dllor mi-dllor of Salt Lake county to extend upon the tax rolls the tax levy f,r th Th opinion was wrlttn by Chief Justice . to. Corfman. Th opinion follows: "Th plaintiff. Salt Lak Clly. filed herein Its petition preying for a per. emptory writ of mandate to lomie out of this court directing and requiring the defendant, James H. Hulllvan. as the duly qualified and acting county auditor of Salt Lake ountv. to extend ex-tend upon the tax rolls of said county few the year 1923 a tax levy as ma,l and certified to by the plulntnf rliv. pursuant to the provisions of chapter 13, compiled laws of Utah. 1917. LEVY WITHIN LIMITS. "8ectlon I02 in said chapter pro. vldes thst during the month of July of each year the city commissioners, in cltlea of the first clssa. at a regular meeting, shall, by ordinance or -rcsolu-tlon. make a levy within certain limitations lim-itations on the real and personal property prop-erty within the city made tuxauie i.e lew. It la then provided by section llOt of said chapter that the rale snd levy shall be certified to the county auditor on the county In which the city la situated, and by section I06 it la further provided that the tax aha 1 be extended by the county ati-lnnr upon the general, tax ri's, which In this Instance, it le aii'xd the plaintiffs petition thst the ainiuor, acting under In direction of the o.h-r defendants aa county commnnioner for Salt Lak county, falls snd refuses to do. "Ths answer of th defendants In substance and effect admlta thst the county auditor, while acting under and by direction of the county commissioners, commis-sioners, refuses to extend upon th general tax rolla th levy ao made by plaintiff pursuant to said section l(2 of the statutes, and. aa ground, therefor, there-for, alleges that said section was sod la now void and of no affect for th reason that It contravenes certain provisions pro-visions of our state constitution and Is contrary to the provlsliuis of section 71 of th compiled law. of l'tan. 11117, aa amended by chapter 13 of the session ses-sion Isws of Utah. lll, and chapter 14 of the session laws of Lath, 1921. NO DISPUTE OF FACTS. "There la no controversy over ths facts. Ths sol question to be determined deter-mined by this court Is whsther or net the city, In making the tax levy for the year 1922. ahould have proceed. '1 under the provisions of section ,t rather then under the provlslona of section S102, the section under which the city mad the levy. Said aection 103 waa enacted by the leglalalure of 191T and was entitled 'An act relating to and fixing maximum annual tax levies In cltlea of the first clars-(chapter clars-(chapter 121, laws of Utah. 1917). It Is contended by th defendants: (1) That th section as originally passed by the legislature contravened the provlslona of aection 2 or article of our stats constitution prohibiting, smong other things, the snarl ni-nt of sny special law changing or amending th charter of any city, and that no special law shall be enacted where a general lew can Ui applicable; (2) (Continued on page 12 ) |
