Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-08-24
TIE TAX COMPROMISE QUESTION.

Decision in the Case of the County of
Sacramento vs. the Central Pacific Rail-
road.
The following is the text of the opinion
Of the United States Circutit Court, Judge
Sawyer presiding, az to the power OF the
State to interfere with or prevent the vari-
GUS counties compromising tax cases brought
by them against the railroad companies.
The question involved is Of great Importance
to every county in the State, foe it insures
to them the right to compromise all such
cases, which has hitherto been serious
question
Creed Raymond appeared for the railroad
companies and A. L. Rhodes for the
COUNTIES.
Judge Sswyer-In the case of the County
of Kern VS.. The Southern Pacific Railroad
Company shall deliver an olal decision.
The Attorney. General desires to inter
vene and take charge of the case for the
county of Kern, superseding the attorney
of record.
The only authority that has been referred
to, or that l have been able to find with
reference to the Attorney General, is Sec
tion 40 of the Political Code, which gives
him authority "to exercise supervisory
powers over District Attorneys in all mat
tiers pertaining to the duties of their of.
fees" But this does not seem to author.
ize him to displace or set aside the District
Attorney altogether against his will
There is another provision which requires
him, when properly called upon, under
certain conditions, to aid the District At
torney. This is certainly not to oppose or
obstruct his action,
1t is not one of the duties of the District
Attorney prescribed by statute to prose.
cute these actions. In this case the attor.
ney of record was employed by the Board
of Supervisors to act as its attorne,. Al.
though the attorney of record for the
plaintiff, the county of Kern, is the same
person who is District Attorney of the
county, he does not purport to appear in
his official capacity as District Attorney.
The statute of 1880 provides for an &C.
ton, and the form of a complaint in any
action thereafter commenced in any CITY or
county tor the recovery Of delinquent taxes.
The complaint IN this case complies with
the provisions of the statute. The act fur
Their provides that "any county or CITY
and county may sue in its own name for
the recovery of delinquent taxes, whether
the same be Tor county, or city and county
and State purposes or taxes, or either Of
them"
Ihis was brought in pursuance of that
provision by the county to recover the
county and State taxes which the statute
says 1t may do and it does not provide for
bringing the suit by the State or any other
party.
Section 4046 says the Boards of Super
vsors have jurisdiction and power to q 6i.
rect and control the prosecution and de.
tense of all suits to which the county is a
party" Here is suit to which the county
is party, and the only proper party recog.
pized by the statute, the law permits it to
bring it /; and this provision expressly gives
the Board of Supervisors authority " to di.
rect and control the prosecution of that
suit" 1t gives it to nobody else.
The statute, as l read and interpret it,
gives entire control to the Board of Super.
visors and no one else. A suit must be
controlled by some one. Two parties, act.
ing upon adverse and inconsistent views
rid theories, cannot both control the case ;
one or the other must direct and control,
and in this case the statnte says it shall be
the Board OF Supervisors, notwithstanding
the fact that the State has an interest "
may be that the power to direct and con.
troll is not wisely located, but so the law is
written.
To grant this motion would be to permit
the Attorney General to take control and
to take the whole management out of the
hands of the attorney of the county EN-.
ployed by the Board of Supervisors, who il
acting under and in strict conformity to
the directions of the Board, and, conse.
quently, to take this case out of the direc.
ton and control of the Board of Super.
visors.
1t is understood that both parties : this
case contemplate the entry cf judgment
for some amount satisfactory to the Board.
If the judgment will be void upon its
face it may be Intellectual but whether il
will be void or not is rot now question
before the Court, and no opinion upon the
question is suggested
1t is matter of gre4S Importance to-eeeee
county to have this ma
1t is important, as is sh
ifs attorney, to have t! tered
contemplated, beesSse Iii affect the
amount-3t |she texxef which will have to be
levied in thsroounty. If judgment be not
entered as contemplated, they may be de.
layed for years before final judgment is
obtained, even if the plaintiff is not utterly
defeated. The question will arise, as in
other counties, whether they have got any
right to judgment at all here. This
county might be put to great disadvantage
by allowing otner parties than those
authorized by law to take the control of
the suit. 1t might result in imposing upon
the county much larger tax than the peo-
pie will now be called upon to pay. The
county will be compelled to provide for
contingencies.
Ii there are any rights that the State
has, / suppose there will be remedy for
them In some form but it is not neces-
ssry now to consider what, if any, it is
| think it would be improper to allow
this application, and therefore deny it.
should certainly be glad to have the
Attorney General as dmicus curie, if in no
other capacity, in this or any other case
upon any question raised by the parties
properly controlling the case. Bat this
is not the proposition. The proposition
is to take the case in question out of the
control of the Board OF Supervisors, and
= take other propositions which the Board
deem detrimental to the interests of the
county they represent, and which they
consequently do not desire to take.
Judge Rhodes-Will the questions as to
the authority to compromise suit he
passed upon in this case
The Court do not know what ques-
tions the counsel will present. They will
present such questions as they see fit. do
not pass upon the question now. do not
know what course counsel will take on
either side. The question now is whether
the Board OF Supervisors shall manage the
suit, or whether somebody else shall man.
age it for them, and in opposition to the
views of the Board.
was going to say, too, that Judge Dem
son, OF the Sacramento Superior Court,
uDon cognate point, has taken a similar
view.
Ii there are any rights beyond the
amount of the judgment that will be
entered, l suppose there will be some
remedy III some form. I do not know
what the remedy may be. The parties will
have the risk of their actions. There was,
l believe, an arrangement between the par
ties for judgment for certain sum. l do
not think there is any stipulation on file.
My understanding is that they had some
arrangement by which Judgment was to be
taken, bat the particulars l do not know.
Judge Rhodes-1ou will decline to in.
tsrfere with any arrangement?
The Court-Certainly, l shall not inter.
fere with their arrangements. | should
not undertake to manage the case for the
Supervisors of Kern county, nor for the
other side. l should not consider myself
any more authorized to manage it than for
any other person to take charge l GER
tainly should not refuse to permit the
Attorney-General to take the case out of
the hands OF the attorney OF record Of the
proper parties. and then take charge of the
case myself. 1t is no part of my duty to
act as attorney in the case.
County OF Sacramento VS.. the Central