The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-23
AT THE JUNCTION CITY.
JUDGE MINERS DECISION IN THE
HAMER CASE.
The Writ of Mandamus Granted as
Prayed Fora Damage Suit
Against Ogden City.

Prayed For "A Damage putt
Against Ogden City.
Ogden Jan. 22.-The only business
transacted in the Fourth district court
today was Judge Miners decision in
the case of Weber county VS.. Daniel
Hamer, county collector. The de-
cision was as follows:
The questions presented in this case
are both difficult and novel. The stat
utes are so complicated, that it is
very difficult for one to come 10
satisfactory conclusion upon the ques-
ton involved. I shall not attempt 10
give more than the results of the con-
clusion 1 have reached, as | nave not
the time, to review in detail the COM
pick questions presented. 1t appears
from the facts presented that at the
time this writ was issued that Daniel
Hamer as county tax collector had IN
his hands S1S,733.44, Of county money,
900 of this sum has since been pald
into the county treasury. 1t also ap-
pears that under section 2036, l.. G. u.
1888, the county court in due time al-
lrected the county collector to pay over
all funds collected by him into the
week, which notice was duly given
Mr.. Hamer, this order was not COM
piled with as it should have been; the
county collector claiming that ne
should have credit for fees and dis
bursements attending sales to the
county, and that certificates OF safes
should be received and credited TO
him with all costs made and fees IL
Guided. Under section 2027 G. L., 1880,
ho
compensation of the county collector
claims under section 2030, G. L., 1892,
page 80. that he is entitled to % cents
per folio for each certificate OF sale 10
the county; and the same for dpuli-
cate of each filed with the recorder;
! also so cents for publishing name ana
amount of such taxes due from each
delinquent, and so cents for filing each
certificate to tax sale with county re-
corder; that there has been 9S6 of
such tax sales bid in to the county for
which the collector charges from 500 to
81 each to the county. 1t is claimed by
plaintiff, that when the descriptions
sold is in the city, another certificate
is given the city, for which the same
charge is made, and that duplicates OF
each are filed with the county recorder.
These certificates of sale average about
u to Is folios each, or 48 to 60 folios
and it is claimed that Is cents per
folio is charged on such papers in the
case of each sale; that is, % cents per
folio to the county for the certificate
two duplicates and % cents per folio
to the city With the city matter we
have nothing to say.
l think these certificates of sale are
unnecessarily lengthy containing in Il
to Is folios each, that which could and
SHOULD have been embraced in one or
at the most two folios. The fact that
this form has been used elsewhere in
the territory does not justify the use
here, when it appears that such use
greatly and unnecessarily increases
the burden of the tax payer and adds
about Sc more in the case of each sale
to the county than necessary. The
money paid for publishing the name
and amount of tax is a proper charge
against the county. but this and ali
other such charges should be fixed and
allowed by the county court under
section 1876, p 307, c. L. 1888, and sec
ton 1877, p 298. section II, same sec
ton. The county clerk is but a clerk
OF the county court and is not giyer
power to act and fix compensation, and
allow claims of officers independent oil
the county court, under the law above
cited. Nor does section 2031 first c. l.
1888. give him such power independent
of the action of the county court. AL
other services rendered by the county
collector for the county including The
sale of tax lands to the county Il
means sales to the county and no
otherwise) for which charge is made
are covered by the collectors compen
sa ton Ton as fixed by the county court a
So, 900 per year
The fees mentioned in the statut,
referred to, Go not include such ser
vices to the county for which compen
sation is allowed by the county cour
under section 2027, c. L. 1890. D. 80
any other construction of section 2O90
"A" and 1892 p. 80 and other pro
visions would make the compensatio,
OF the county collector so excessive an,
eXhorbitant as to shatter the confid
ence of the people in the law maxim:
power, and its payment should be al
unjust burden upon the tax paver
which would amount to extortion'
The Legislature could not have in
! tended any such construction of thes
statutes. 1t also appears from tn
: testimony that no effort was mad
by the county collector to collect tn
: taxes referred to by first exhaustin
by levy and sale the personal propert
OF the delinquent as required by sec
ton 2O3O, "a page 80, c. L., 1892.
This should have been done befor
offering for sale and selling to tn
county or any one else the real estat
of the delinquent. to say the leas
these proceedings to sell the real estat
r without first making effort to colIec
from sale Of personal proerty unde
> section 2030, az referred 20 were es
tremely irregular and voidable if nc
void. The county will doubtless deriv
no benefit from such voidable sale
under such certifica ties a deed there
. under would be voidable and conve
no title, and the county thereby becom
the looser. Under these circumstance
: the county can hardly afford to civ
s the credit asked. This fact is an &C
ditional reason to allow the conpef
: sation charged even if such charge
: were otherwise legal, even if the abov
proposition should prove intenabl
f still it is not within the province
e the collector to determine and Sett
for himself without the action of tt
p county court what his fees are. an
n withhold them with the other take
regardless of the judgment and dete
= mination Of the county court, who's
: duties are conferred by section 10
I page 507. 1. C. l.. and section 1877, pas
298, 1, c. L., and subdivision II, san
. section.
= II does not appear tnat any claim III
been presented to the county court 1
: the collector for such services.
T For these and other reasons it
ordered that the writ of Mandarin
IS prayed for in this case be granted,
It prayed allowing the credit for $4,000.
paid in
n In the case of Daniel Hamer VS.. w,
It Der County and Joseph Ledwidg
county clerk, which was tried wit
- Weber County VS.. Hamer, the reason
. ing is applicable, when Sec. 2O31