Show C 0 T DENIES WHIT WITH leave T un RENEW CONDITION tax sile deed does not cut off I 1 ien of bonds entirely En tirel nor are the lands held by county free from ill encumbrance LITIGANTS MUST GET TOGETHER the clerk will will anter enter an order de flying the petitions with leave to re to new the upon the condl tion above named are the words of the court order in the application for a writ of mandamus to force the levy of taxes there has been much mi mia under sunder standing loca llly as to the decision ot of the court and many local people have been under the impression that the court ruled that the county tax deed wiped out the bond lien entire ly such is not the case the court held with the bondholders as much as with the defendants the bond holders are given leave to renew an application for such a writ upon certain conditions imposed the oi older der of 0 court reads in part in the light of the statutory law ol 01 the state of utah and on general principles it does not seem to me that the sales of the lands in ques tion in 1925 tor for the general taxes of that year and the later issuance of deeds based upon such tax sales to the county cut oft off the lien of those bonds entirely or that the lands so conveyed by tax deeds to the county are held by it entirely free and clear pt pf all encumbrances including these bonds it is argued in behalf of the county and of intervenor inter yenor that this statute sec see 2072 1917 made these bonds a present subsisting lien upon the lands within the districts and that such lien was cut off by the tax sales and deeds issued to the county to intervenor this argument I 1 think proves too much no public bonds are ever issued whether by state county city or quasi public corporations such as these drainage districts in which all the privately owned lands within the jurisdiction of the governmental agency are not expressly or impliedly pledged tor for their section 2058 of the compiled laws of utah 1917 is quoted as making the bonds a specific lien upon some specific parcel of land then the or der continues section 2072 declares an inchoate lien in respect to the bonds which under section 2058 becomes a fixed and specific lien upon a definite and centam piece or parcel of land with in the district counsel for plaintiff admits that the tax deed treed freed the lands from the encumbrance of 0 all specific liens attaching thereto prior to the sales made in I 1 2 5 but contends that the liens created or which may be creat ed by levies made tor for the payment of 0 tho the bonds subsequent to these sales aie valid and enforceable as against the tax deeds ol 01 the county and the deed of the intervenor abbott from the county I 1 think this contention correct the payment ot of taxes Is vital and is as asked ot of any holder of 0 land hence considerable space Is given to taxes intent to pay by a holder of 0 land the county Is as this record very clearly shows only an ary nd unwilling holder of those lands and of these certificates of sale what it wants needs and Is entitled to have it if possible Is money in pay ment of the general taxes heretofore 1 levied and remaining unpaid in my opinion it Is the duty of every person owning or substantially interested in property within the confines of millard comity to pay the general taxes due and unpaid which have been assessed against the property owned by him or in which he is vitally interested no govern ment can exist without means with which to carry on and in my ion the plaintiff bears such relation to the real estate within these dis tracts that it Is bis his duty to pay those delinquent taxes or make some sat Is factory adjustments respecting them with millard county the court is of the opinion that the writs prayed for should be refused at this time with leave to the plaintiff later on to renew his apall cation after he shall have paid or ad austed the settlement of the delin quent taxes upon the lands in ques tion with millard county the clerk will enter an order de nying the petitions with leave to re new the applications upon the con the order is not interpreted by us as saying that by a county tax sale deed the hen lien of the drainage bond tax Is extinguished after an otter offer and compromise on money matters leave Is given to renew the applina tion it Is to clear an erroneous impress ion that many local persons hold thinking that the decision was that a county tax deed wiped out the drainage bond hen lien in its entirety that this is written it was not so held the full text of the decision Is in the hands of attorneys and Is pub lie ile property to anyone wishing to become informed of its contents As we interpret the decision in ef e feet if it a property is allowed to go to tax sale deed is wipes out the BACK four bears 5 ears drainage tax by default to protect the hen lien just as a mortgagor will lose out it he let the property he held a lien on be sold from under him but it DOES NOT wipe out any subsequent levy and it ther county refuses a reasonable of fer made without discrimination to settle the debt by compromise the plaintiff may renew his appet cation for a compulsory levy subsequent levies are legal and will be upheld the popular accept ance of the burton decision was not sustained |