« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Watts & S. 166. The listing of lands to the law is plain and adequate for the redress of wrong person affords no ground for restrain- the plaintiff's alleged grievances. The judging the collection, by sale of the property ment is therefore reversed, and the cause re itself, of the taxes due thereon. Sections manded, with instructions to sustain the de 4023-4026, inclusive, of the Political Code, laurrer to the complaint. Reversed and reprohibit courts and judges from enjoining the manded. collection of any tax, and from restraining the sale of the property for nonpayment of BRANTLY, C. J., and HUNT, J., concur. any tax, except in those instances where the tax is illegal, or not authorized by law, or where the property is exempt from taxation,
(25 Nev. 235) and provide the means and remedies where- INDA V. MCINNIS, Sheriff. (No. 1,564.) by the rights of persons who deem the taxes
(Supreme Court of Nevada. Nov. 28, 1899.) irregularly or improperly demanded of the
PLEADING-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT-JUowners, or sought to be enforced against the
RISDICTION OF JUSTICE COURT. property, may be guarded and protected; and 1. In a complaint on a receipt for a deposit of of these remedies the plaintiff, if injured, money, to be returned “when settled that plainmay avail himself. In this case it is not pre
tiff is not liable for a license on sheep," the
necessity of an allegation of settlement of plaintended that the property was exempt, nor
tiff's liability as mentioned in the receipt is not that the taxes were not levied in conformity avoided by the averments of ownership in the with the law, nor is there a suggestion that
plaintiff of 5,396 acres of land in the state, and
that the license tax is illegal. the valuation was unjust or excessive. The
2. In an action on a receipt for $300, "to be plaintiff and his grantors knew-or, what is returned when it is settled that plaintiff is not equivalent to knowledge, were bound to liable for a license on sheep," where it does not know-that the property was liable to taxa
appear that the claim has been settled, the aver
ment that the tax is illegal will not deprive the tion, and would be assessed annually, and justice of the peace of jurisdiction. that a listing to one other than the owner
Appeal from district court, Washoe counwould not avoid an assessment otherwise
ty; B. F. Curler, Judge. regular. He and they knew when the taxes
Action by Arnaud Inda against W. H. Mcwould fall due and should be paid, and he cannot in this action successfully urge, as a
Innis, as sheriff. From an order sustaining a reason why his lands should be relieved of the
demurrer to the complaint and judgment en
tered thereon, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. lien for taxes, that he did not know of the assessment, and had no opportunity to discharge
Torreyson & Summerfield and F. H. Northe taxes.
cross, for appellant. A. E. Cheney and E. D. 3. Section 4017 of the Political Code pro Vanderleith, for respondent. vides that the taxes assessed prior to July 1, 1895, must be collected under the laws in BELKNAP, J. Appeal from an order susforce at the time the assessment was made, taining a demurrer and from the Judgment and in the same manner as if the Code had entered thereupon. The complaint, in subnot been passed. When the assessment of stance, alleged: That defendant, during the 1890 was made, a notice of four weeks before times mentioned, was the sheriff of Washoe the sale of property for delinquent taxes was county. That plaintiff, during the same perequired, whereas the notice under which the riod, was the owner of 6,000 head of sheep treasurer now threatens to sell the lands is pasturing in Washoe county. That defendant but a three-weeks notice. This irregularity demanded the sum of $300 of plaintiff as a llor infirmity, whatever consequences might cense tax, as such owner. That plaintiff noflow from it touching the proposed sale when tified defendant that he was the owner of made, has not the effect of rendering the tax- 5,396 acres of land in the state of Nevada, es illegal or unauthorized by law. Nor does notwithstanding which defendant threatened the fact that the treasurer intends to violate to enforce his demand by process of law, unsections 3922 and 3923 of the Political Code, | less plaintiff paid the license demanded; by exposing for sale, for the delinquent taxes whereupon plaintiff, in order to avoid the defor 1898, part of the lands purchased by the tention of his sheep, agreed to and did deposit county at the sale for the taxes of 1897, and with defendant the sum of $300, to be reyet unredeemed, entitle the plaintiff to an tained by him according to the terms of the injunction. Section 4026, supra, declares that following receipt: "Reno, Nevada, April 11, the remedy provided by sections 4024 and 1899. Received of A. Inda three hundred dol4025 "shall supersede the remedy of injunc- lars ($300) on deposit, until it is settled that tion and all other remedies which might be said A. Inda is not liable for a license on invoked to prevent the collection of taxes or sheep, and, in case he is entitled to run his licenses alleged to be irregularly levied or sheep in Washoe county, the money is to be demanded, except in unusual cases, where returned to him. W. H. McInnis, Sheriff of the remedy hereby provided is deemed by the Washoe County.” That defendant retains the court to be inadequate." There is nothing money for a license upon the sheep menin this case sufficient to Warrant the grant- tioned, and refuses to return any portion of ing of the equitable remedy of injunction it to plaintiff. That a license tax upon plainagainst the intended sale. The remedy at tiff on account of berding, grazing, pasturing, or owning sheep is without authority of law Petition by the Pacific States Savings, Loan and void. Defendant demurred to the com- & Building Company for leave to file its plaint, on the grounds that it did not state claim against the estate of John G. Fox, defacts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ceased, after the expiration of the statutory and that the court had no jurisdiction thereof. time barring unpresented claims. From an
Plaintiff should have averred in his com- order allowing the claim to be filed, Sarah J. plaint that the contingency mentioned in the Fox, as administratrix, appeals. Affirmed. receipt from the defendant had occurred. This is in the nature of a condition precedent,
Alfred Chartz, for appellant. Samuel Platt, and must be averred in an action upon the
for respondent. contract. Counsel for appellant admit that this is the general rule, but claim that it is BELKNAP, J. Respondent, a corporation not applicable in this case because of the aver- created by the laws of the state of California, ments of ownership in plaintiff of 5,396 acres petitioned the district court to file its claim of land in the state, and that the license tax against the estate of decedent after the exon sheep is illegal. But the obligation of de piration of the statutory time for the pubfendant is to return the money when “it is lication of the notice to creditors barring unsettled that plaintiff is not liable for a license presented claims, upon the ground that it tax on sheep." Defendant is liable only upon had no notice of the appointment of appelthe terms of his contract, and, if the con- | lant as administratrix, and that the final actingency has not transpired, the action can- count had not been filed. Affidavits in supnot be maintained. To hold otherwise would port of the motion were also filed, and upon be to substitute an obligation for the defend- the showing made an order was entered alant different from that which he has himself lowing respondent to file its claim. The admade.
ministratrix appeals from the order, claimThe demand, exclusive of interest, does not ing that the publication of the statutory noexceed $300, and prima facie the justice court tice to creditors of her appointment, and giv- . had jurisdiction; but it is claimed the legal | ing them three months in which to present ity of a tax is involved, and for this reason their claims, was summons, and, as the petithat the case was properly brought in the tioner is a California corporation with no district court. The receipt upon which the agent in this state upon whom process could action was brought states that the money was be served, the secretary of state, under the deposited “until it is settled” that said Inda statute of 1889 (St. 1889, p. 47), was its agent is not liable for a license on sheep, and, in for that purpose, and the publication of the case he is entitled to run his sheep in Washoe summons was service upon him, and is concounty, the money is to be returned to him. clusive upon the question of notice. The act We are not advised by the complaint wheth- to regulate the settlement of estates of deer or not proceedings have been instituted for ceased persons, as amended at the session of the purpose of settling these differences, but 1899, and under which the court acted, prothe should be settled in that action, and vides: not in this one. The complaint in this case "Sec. 107. Every executor or administrator attempts to state a cause of action for money shall immediately after his appointment cause had and received for plaintiff's use, and is to be published in some newspaper published not aided by immaterial averments as to the in the county, if there be one, if not, then in illegality of a tax. The order and judgment such newspaper as may be designated by the are affirmed.
court or judge, and post copies thereof in three
public places of the county, a notice of his BONNIFIELD, C. J., and MASSEY, J., con- appointment as such executor or administra
tor. Such notice shall be properly entitled of court and cause, specifying the date of ap
pointment, the name of deceased, and shall (25 Nev, 229)
be dated and officially signed by the executor PACIFIC STATES SAVINGS, LOAN & or administrator, and shall direct that all BUILDING CO. v. FOX.
persons having claims against the estate are (No. 1,570.)
required to file the same with the proper (Supreme Court of Nevada. Nov. 28, 1899.)
vouchers and statutory affidavits attached,
with the clerk of the court within three EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE-TIME FOR
months from the date of the first publication: PRESENTATION.
of the notice. Such notice shall be published A claim against an estate of a decedent for at least once a week for four weeks. Aftmay be filed after the expiration of the statu- er the notice shall have been given as above tory time for the publication of the notice to creditors barring unpresented claims, where, as
required, a copy thereof with the affidavit of provided by St. 1899, pp. 110, 111, $ 108, it ap- publication and posting, shall be filed. pears by allidavit of the claimant that he had no
"Sec. 108. All persons having claims against notice, as the publication of such notice is not
the deceased must within three months after summons.
the first publication of the notice specified in Appeal from district court, Ormsby coun- the preceding section, file the same with the ty; C. E. Mack, Judge.
necessary vouchers with the clerk of the
court, who shall file and register each claim. than 50,000 inhabitants. Held, that the subjectIf a claim be not filed with the clerk within matter of the act is sufficiently expressed in the three months after the first publication of
title, though the title indicates that the act is to
apply to the whole state, while in the body it is said notice, it shall be forever barred: pro- limited to counties containing more than 50,000 vided, that when it shall be made to appear
inhabitants; and hence the act is not in violaby the affidavit of the claimant, or by other
tion of Const, art. 4, § 20, declaring that every
act shall embrace but one subject, and matter proof, that he had no notice, as provided in
properly connected therewith, which shall be exthis act, to the satisfaction of the court or pressed in the title. judge, it may be filed at any time before the
2. Such act is not an act to regulate the pracfiling of the final account." St. 1899, pp. 110,
tice in courts of justice, within the meaning of
Const. art. 4, § 23, providing that the legisla111.
tive assembly shall not pass special or local laws In considering the question whether the no- regulating the practice in courts of justice. tice mentioned in the above sections is sum
3. Such act is not an act providing for the as
sessment and collection of taxes for state, counmons or not, we must not overlook the provi
ty, township, or road purposes, within the meansions of section 108, to the effect "that, when ing of Const. art. 4, § 23, providing that the legit shall be made to appear by the affidavit of islative assembly shall not pass special or local the claimant or other proof that he had no
laws for the assessment and collection of taxes
for state, county, township, or road purposes. notice," the court may order his claim filed.
4. Such act does not grant to certain citizens This provision violates no constitutional re- privileges and immunities not belonging to all quirement, and requires no judicial construc- citizens, as it affects alike all persons under the
same circumstances and conditions, and hence tion. We are not at liberty to evade plainly-ex
is not in violation of Const. art. 1, § 20, propressed language, and must enforce the pro- viding that no law shall be passed granting to vision according to its terms. If the conten- any citizen or class of citizens privileges or imtions of appellant are to prevail, no relief
munities which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally apply to all citizens. could be given under section 108, for the publication of the notice itself would give the Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah counclaimant notice, and estop him from asserting ty; A. L. Frazer, Judge. the contrary. This would result in nullifying
Proceeding by the state, on relation of R. a beneficial provision, and creating contra
F. Bell, against William Frazier, as sheriff dictions not contemplated by the legislature. of Multnomah county, for mandamus to comUpon the merits, the order is fully supported pel defendant to serve a certain summons. by the proofs, and is affirmed.
There was a judgment for defendant, and re
lator appeals. Affirmed. BONNIFIELD, C. J., and MASSEY, J., This is a mandamus proceeding to compel concur.
the sheriff of Nultnomah county to serve a summons in an action brought by the relator
against one Grimes in the circuit court of (36 Or. 178)
that county without the fees required by the STATE ex rel. BELL V. FRAZIER, Sheriff.
act of February 18, 1899, being first paid (Supreme Court of Oregon. Nov. 20, 1899.) (Laws 1899, p. 140), and the only question for STATUTES-EXPRESSION OF SUBJECT IN TITLE consideration is the constitutionality of such -CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-REGULATING PRACTICE IN COURTS-ASSESSMENT AND COLLEC
act. Section 1 thereof provides that it shall TION OF TAXES-PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNI- be the duty of the sheriff, in all counties of TIES. 1. Aet Feb. 18, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 140), en
the state containing more than 50,000 inhabittitled "An act providing for the payment of cer
ants, to exact, for the use of the county, in tain fees to the recorders of conveyances, clerks all civil suits, actions, or proceedings, certain of the circuit courts and county courts in the fees and charges as set forth. Section 2 state and to sheriffs in certain counties, and for
makes it the duty of the several clerks of the the payment of trial fees, and providing for the payment to the state and several counties of
circuit and county courts of the state, at the sums of money and fees paid to said officers by time of the commencement of any suit, acparties litigant and others; and providing for
tion, or proceeding for the enforcement of the manner of payment of salaries of county officers," provides that the sheriff in all counties of
private rights, to exact from the plaintiff or the state containing more than 50,000 inhabit- moving party the sum of $10 in all cases ants shall exact, for the use of the county, in where the amount in controversy exceeds all civil actions, certain fees and charges; that the clerks of the circuit and county courts, at
$500, and $5 in all cases where the amount in the commencement of any action or probate pro
controversy is less than that sum, except in ceeding, shall exact from plaintiff or moving par- probate proceedings, when $10 shall be rety certain sums, and shall exact from the de- quired to be paid before the filing of any pefendant, at the time of filing an answer or motion, certain sums, and shall exact from the
tition therein; and no complaint, transcript plaintiff, when the action comes on for trial, a on appeal, petition for writ of review, or any certain sum; that the clerks of the circuit and of the instances in probate proceedings mencounty courts, sheriff, recorder of conveyances,
tioned, shall be filed until such payment has and justices of the peace in counties of more than 50,000 inhabitants shall keep a fee book,
been made. The clerks are also required, at in which shall be kept a record of the fees char- the time of filing any answer, demurrer, or ged, etc.; that the sums collected shall be depos- motion in any action, suit, or proceeding upon ited with the county treasurer; that the salaries of all county officers shall be paid out of the
the part of a defendant, to exact from him county fund; and that none of the provisions of
the sum of $5 in all cases where the amount the act shall apply to counties containing less in controversy exceeds the sum of $500, and $3 in all cases where the amount in contro- (2) it is a local law, regulating the practice versy is $500 or less, except in probate pro- in courts of justice, and providing for the asceedings, where he shall be required to pay sessment and collection of taxes for state anu the sum of $5. And they are further re- county purposes, and is void under section 23, quired to exact from the plaintiff or moving art. 4, of the constitution; and (3) it is a law party, at the time the suit, action, contest, or granting to certain citizens privileges and proceeding comes on for final trial or hearing immunities not belonging to all citizens, and on questions of fact and law, when tried by is, therefore, violative of section 20, art. 1, the court, the sum of $2, which must be paid of the constitution. Of these objections in before any trial shall be had; and, in case of the order named. It is entitled “An act proa jury trial, the sum of $12 a day for each and viding for the payment of certain fees to the every day the jury shall be engaged in the recorders of conveyances, clerks of the cirtrial, to be paid in advance each day before cuit courts and county courts in the state and proceeding therewith. Section 3 provides a to sheriffs in certain counties, and for the fee of 10 cents a folio for furnishing private payment of trial fees, and providing for the parties a copy of the records and files in any payment to the state and several counties of of the county offices, which shall be paid into sums of money and fees paid to said officers the county treasury as other fees are required by parties litigant and others; and providing to be paid. Section 4 provides that the sums for the manner of payment of salaries of required to be paid by the parties litigant to county officers,” which, in our opinion, suffithe clerks of the circuit and county courts ciently express the purpose and subject-matand sheriff, as provided in the preceding sec- ter of the law within the doctrine of the pretions, shall be in lieu of all the fees which the vious decisions of this court. O'Keefe v. parties have heretofore been required to pay, Weber, 14 Or. 55, 12 Pac. 74; David v. Water and no other fees than those recited shall Committee, 14 Or. 98, 12 Pac. 174; State v. hereafter be exacted from the parties to any Shaw, 22 Or. 287, 29 Pac. 1028; State v. action, suit, or proceeding. Section 5 makes Koshland, 25 Or. 178, 35 Pac. 32; State v. it the duty of the clerks of the circuit and Linn Co., 25 Or. 503, 36 Pac. 297; Northern county courts, sheriff, recorder of convey. Counties Trust v. Sears, 30 Or. 388, 41 Pac. ances, and justices of the peace in counties of 931, 35 L. R. A. 188. It has been repeatedly more than 50,000 inhabitants to keep a fee held that the section of the constitution here book, in which shall be entered all items of invoked is not directed against the generality service performed, and fees, percentages, com- or comprehensiveness of the title of legislamissions, charges, etc., which shall be a public tive enactments, nor does it require that such record; and each of such officers is required title shall index the details thereof. If all on or before the 1st day of each month to de- the provisions of the law relate, directly or inposit with the county treasurer all sums col- directly, to the same subject, and are not forlected during the previous month, taking his eign to the subject expressed in the title, it receipt therefor. Section 6 makes it the duty will not be held unconstitutional. The obof the county auditor to check up the sums ject of the constitutional provision is to precollected by the several county officers and vent the blending of incongruous subjects in deposited with the treasurer, and make a re- the same act, using the title as a deception, port of his findings to the board of county and to prevent combining subjects representcommissioners on the 1st day of each month, ing divers interests in one act in order to and before the salaries of such officers are unite the members of the legislature who paid. Section 7 provides that the salaries of favor either in support of all. There has all county officers shall be paid by warrant been a general disposition manifested in the drawn on the county fund in pursuance of an cases cited to construe the constitution liberorder of the board of county commissioners, ally, rather than to embarrass legislation by the same as other claims are paid, and that a strict construction. The contention in this they shall receive no other compensation for particular case seems to be that the title of their services; and provides further that none the act is general, and indicates that it was of the provisions of the act shall apply to intended to apply to the whole state, while counties containing less than 50,000 inhabit- in the body it is limited to the class of counants. Section 8 repeals all laws and parts of ties containing more than 50,000 inhabitants, laws in conflict therewith, and contains an and therefore the subject is not properly exemergency clause. The circuit court sustained pressed in the title, because it does not ina demurrer to the alternative writ, holding dicate the limit of the operation of the act. the act to be constitutional, and hence this A question quite similar to this was considappeal.
ered and decided adversely to plaintiff's conSanderson Reed, for appellant. O. F. Pax.
tention in Neuendorff y. Duryea, 69 N. Y. 557. ton, for respondent.
The constitution of New York at that time provided that "no
local bill which BEAN, J. (after stating the facts). The may be passed by the legislature shall emcontention for the plaintiff is that the act is brace more than one subject, and that shall void, because (1) the title does not express be expressed in the title." Article 3, § 16. the subject thereof, and therefore contra- The legislative assembly passed an act provenes section 20, art. 4, of the constitution; hibiting public dramatic entertainments on
Sunday in the city of New York alone, the for state, county, township, or road purpostitle of which was "An act to preserve the es." At the threshold of this objection the public peace and order on the first day of plaintiff is met with the contention that the the week, commonly called Sunday.” It was act is a general, and not a special or local, contended that it was void, because local, law, and for this reason does not come withwhile the title indicated that it was a gen- in the section of the constitution referred to. eral act. But the court held that, although But, as we are satisfied it is neither a law it was a local law, the objection was not regulating the practice in courts of justice nor well taken, and in deciding the case said: providing for the assessment and collection of "The title of the act is, 'An act to preserve taxes for state, county, township, or road purthe public peace and order on the first day poses, this contention is immaterial for the of the week, commonly called Sunday.' It purposes of the case. It is difficult to lay will be seen that it is broad enough in its lan- down any rule by which it may be determined guage to apply to the whole state. This, whether a given statute is an act regulating however, is not enough, alone, to determine the practice in courts of justice or not. Acthat it is improper. If it meets the conceded cording to Mr. Bouvier, and adopted by Webpurpose of the constitution, it is correct. Peo- ster, “Practice is the form, manner, and order ple v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553. That purpose of conducting and carrying on suits or prosehas been repeatedly declared to be: First, cutions in courts through their various stages, prevent the union in one title of several local according to the principles of law and the projects, or the attaching of some local proj. rules laid down by the respective courts." ect to a general subject, or vice versa; and, 2 Bouv. Dict. p. 357. And this definition is second, by the title to give information to all adopted in the American and English Encyconcerned in the subject of the act that that clopaedia of Law (volume 19, page 1), and also subject is likely to be affected by pending in Butler v. Young, 1 Flip. 276, Fed. Cas. No. legislation. It is plain that the first part of 2,245; Bowlus v. Brier, 87 Ind. 391. The act this purpose is met. There is in this act but under consideration can in no sense be said one local subject. Is not the second part also to regulate the practice in courts of justice, met? The title is broad enough to indicate within this rule. It prescribes no new or legislation in regard to the public peace and other or different form of procedure or man. order on Sunday throughout the state. ner of conducting suits or actions in the class Hence it gave information to the people in of counties containing 50,000 inhabitants than New York City, and to their representatives in the other counties of the state. It does not in the legislature, that that locality was in. in any way change or affect the practice or terested in the proposed enactment. The con- procedure in any court. The practice in a stitution seeks an end. The solicitude of it court is the manner or order in which the prois not how it is reached; and any method ceedings are had and the business of the court which attains that end satisfies the constitu- transacted, and the law providing the fees tion, which prescribes no form. The consti- which shall be paid by litigants as a conditutional purpose was not to insure that there tion precedent to their right to invoke the aid should be no legislation discriminating for or of the court manifestly does not affect or regagainst any locality. It was to insure that ulate the practice. The statutes of the Unitsuch legislation should not be had without ed States provide that the practice in civil that locality being apprised of the intention causes other than equity and admiralty cases so to legislate, with opportunity to urge or in the circuit and district courts of the United oppose. If the title of the bill be so general States shall conform as near as may be to as to indicate to every portion of the state the practice existing at the time in the courts that possibly it may be brought within the of record of the state in which such circuit scope of the law, that purpose is effected; so and district courts are held. The laws of Illithat, though the act deals with New York nois provided that a judge in charging a jury City alone, and the title indicates the whole should instruct them only as to the law of the state, the dwellers in New York City were ap- case. The judge of the United States circuit prised that there was a law proposed which court for Illinois refused to be bound by the might affect them.” We are of the opinion, state statute, and charged the jury upon the therefore, that the act under consideration is facts in the case; and the supreme court of not violative of section 20, art. 4, of the con- the United States (Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. stitution.
426, 23 L. Ed. 280) held that the charging of It is next contended that the statute under a jury by the judge was not a matter of pracconsideration is a local law regulating the tice within the meaning of the federal statpractice in courts of justice, and providing for utes. In our judgment, therefore, the act in the assessment and collection of taxes, and question is not one regulating the practice in is, therefore, void, under section 23, art. 4, of courts of justice. Nor is it an act for the the constitution, which provides that: “The assessment and collection of taxes for state, legislative assembly shall not pass special or county, township, or road purposes, within local laws in any of the following enumerated the meaning of this section of the constitucases, that is to say:
(3) Regulat- tion. The terms "assessment” and “taxa!ng the practice in courts of justice;
tion" are often used in a sense co-extensive (10) for the assessment and collection of taxes with the sovereign power under which the