Show us be SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS V UTAH tax DEEO DEED ACT IH IN FULL L state supreme courts action held cioper on levy amendment march 2 the U S supreme court affirmed the decision of the supreme court of utah in the case of george S ingraham sherwood green ed ward P mckenna et al at va henry hanson involving title to a tract of land la in millard county utah acquin ed by hanson from the county at tax sale hanson brought suit in the district court to quiet his title alleging that the general taxes a the land tor for 1926 had not been paid and that as a result a tax deed of the property was taken ty 1 the county which had conveyed the land to him the land lay within the millaid county drainage district no 3 ap pel lants owners of the bends of the I 1 drainage district set up that the bonds were payable by annual as gess sess ments and levy of drainage tax ps under the statutes of utah in force when tl e bonds were sold they contended also that the provision of the he statute became part of the dobli gatlon gation of tot their bonds and required hat that when general taxes and drain age taxes became delinquent there should be but one notice of sale and but one certificate af of sale and tax deed in which all general and spec lal tal taxes should be included ruling quoted the supreme court today ruled that under the laws of utah taxes tor for general improvement purposes are paramount to all other demands against the property to which the tax lien attaches the court held that the challenged amendment did not make any substantial change tn in the rights of the holders of the drainage district bonds two ions tons were rendered by separate paths they reached the same result the court quoted judge moffat s 0 pinion holding that the manner in which the drainage tax lien is made effective for the purpose of reach ing the security to which the bond lien lieu attaches Is substantially the same since the amendment asbe as be tore fore that no added burden Is placed on the drainage district nor the bondholder nor is the lien more dif ficula of enforcement it also quoted judge moffat as holding that the lien tor for general taxes was superior to the lien tor for drainage district taxes both before and after the amendment and that no right to make effective the drain age tax lien had been taken away or impaired judge wolfe s opinion also was cited wherein he held that the amendment was intended to clarify rather than change the law taw and that the manner of collecting taxes was the same after amend ment as before effect of contract while this court in enforcing the contract clause may determine tor for itself the meaning and effect of the contract said the supreme court we see no reason for not accepting the ruling of the state court as to the construction of the statute in question and the state practice we find no basis for conclusion that un der the amendment the procedure for enforcing the liens of drainage district taxes was substantially dif ferent from that which obtained before the amer amen at nt or that the con tract been peen rights jupt 1 x Loud bondholders bolders have because of the importance of the case in the general tax scheme the utah tax commission was allowed to 0 o file lie briefs and enter the case millaro Mil lail county and the millard school district were also in the case the attorneys attorn eya in in the case before thy U S supreme court were grover A giles assistant utah attorn attorney eygen gen eral representing the tax commiss ions charles D moore and 0 A depre enting hanson dil I 1 county and the school district and 0 P soule representing the bondholders salt lake tribune march 2 |