, 1890-01-01
THE COUNTY is RIGHT.
Attorney General Donzelman's
Opinion in the Tax Case.
If a Mistake has Been Made There
can be a Revision.
The Pending Suit of the Territory
VS.. Laramie County.

Attorney General Donzleman has sub
mitted an exhaustive opinion in the case
OF the Territory VS.. Laramie county.
The territory. through Auditor Grant,
seeks TO collect IS. 700 in taxes from the
county which the latter has been unable
to secure on account of double and er
roneous assessments discovered after re.
turns had been made to the territory.
The opinion is favorable to this and
other counties in a similar position. Here
is the text of it:
Hon. ~ N. Grant, Territorial Au
ditor. Cheyenne, WVo.-SIR:-In COM
pliance with your request | have care
fully examined the state of affairs with
relation to the claim made by Laramie
county Tor an allowance on account of
double and erroneous assessments and |
think that sections 1904. l709 and III
revised statutes have no application in
this matter. These sections apply only
to claims for compensation or money due
from the territory. The matter in ques
ton between Laramie county and the ter
ritory does not involve a claim due from
the territory, but involves the amount of
a claim due frnm Laramie county to the
territory 1t is a claim in ia
or OF the territory and not a
claim against the territory. and as | I'M
derstand 1t the only controversy between
the county and the territory is as to the
amount of the claim which is considered
to be due FROM the county to the terri
tory. This matter is regulated by sections
1886 and l.69S of the revised statutes.
Section 1886 fixes the liability of the
county for territorial. Taxes his liability is
for the amount OF tax levied for terrific
rial purposes, excepting such amounts as
are certified to be double or erroneous as
sessment." The county is thus not liza
bic for such terFitor a taxes as are double
or erroneous. Section 1898 requires the
county collector of revenue to exhibit his
accounts to the auditor on or before the
third Monday of December of each year
for auditing. adjusting and settlement. |
think this settlement is conclusive against
the county, excepting that like all other
settlement or adjustment of accounts it
may be opened and revised by the parties
or by the courts whenever it appears that
there was a material mistake in the settle.
ment or whenever it appears that there
were matters not known at the time which
should have entered into such settle
ment and which would have ma.
terially affected the result bad such mat.
tiers been known at the time of such set
Element. In this case, if there were any
double or erroneous assessments, which
were erroneous'y omitted from the settle-
ment made, or if there were any double
or erroneous assessments which were MT
known to the parties at the time of sueh
settlement. then, and IN ei.hs- vi such
cases. | thinE, hat the settlement made
should be oeened and revised according
To ths-ieaf facts. In my Judgment the
law fixing the time when the county
collector shall exhibit his accounts to the
auditor is only directory and not manda-
tory. In other words, if the accounts are
not exhibited at the time named. the law
does not exclude their being exhibited af-
forwards, and if they We're not properly
exhibited according to law at
the time named, think
there is nothing in the statutes
that prevents there being properly ex-
hibited at any time. The law sdoes not
fix any time when the auditor shall make
such settlement excepting that IL shall be
done with unnecessary delay" after
the accounts have been properly exhibited
h. the county collector. 1t is therefore
my opinion that upon a proper showing Of
any OF the matters hereinbefore set forth,
the settlement heretofore made may he
opened and revised for the purpose OF
showing the true amount of double and
erroneous assessment if there be any
Respectfully submitted,
III. D~ONZELMAN.