Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1895-10-25
FAR. REACHING IN ITS BEARING
Effect of the Decision, as Construed IL
This City.

Effect of the Decision, as Construed In
This City.
The decision received In this case, while
the amount directly involved Is small,
Is of great Importance and far-reach-
ing in its bearing, since the text of the
decision Is to the effect that all taxes
of this kind on which no effort has been
made to collect are outlawed in two
years. BY some 1t Is estimated that in
this city this will amount to $4,000,
while by others 1t is placed as high
as $465,000. Whatever the amount may
be, the warrants will have to be paid
out of the general fund of the city
rather than the special assessment
levied against the property abutting
on the street improved.
The case of the city against w. w.
Stevens was for $3.50 assessment for
street improvements on Mallon street
The tax was levied on the 4th of May,
1890, and suit was commenced to en-
force the collection on the 18th OF Aug
ust, 1894. The defendant demurred to
the complaint and the lower court sus-
tanned the demurrer. From this ruling
the city appealed. The defendants con-
tended that the statute of Limitation
barred the action and cited in support
| of this contention Hills Code, section
120, which says: IAN action for relief
| not hereinbefore provided for shall be
| commenced within two years after the
cause of the action shall have oc-
CURED" The city on the contrary
claimed that this statute did not ap-
ply, that the statute was silent on the
subject and therefore the rules of COM
mon law held good. The respondents
further contended that the statute of
limitations was statute in repose and
cited a long list of authorities in sup
port of this construction. The city held
that the statute of limitation did not
apply to municipal corporations. while
the respondents referred to section 22s
of Hills Code. which says: 1.-THE linn
itations prescribed in this act shall ap.
ply to actions brought in the name OF
the state, or any county or other public
corporation therein, or for its benefits
in the same manner as to actions BY
private parties" In support of thii
construction a long list of authorities
was also cited.
The city set up the claim that they
appeared for the assessment districts
which were not corporations and there
fore incapable of appearing for them
selves, and as such they could not b,
guilty of laches, and that for this rea
son the statute of limitations could no
run against them. The respondents con
tended that the city appeared for an,
on behalf of the assessment districts
were agents of the same, and that tn
contracts and warrant holders coul
not themselves be held responsible 70
the commissioners of the city. The
further held that the extension of tn
statute of limitation passed on Marc
20, 1898. was not retroactive, since
was not so specified in the law, an
that tax claim once barred was barre
for all time.
1.-THE amount covered by this d.
cision, said Corporation Counsel Plum
mer lasi evening, will be in the neigh
, borhood of $4,000. Those who have bee
making the statement that It wi
4 amount to something over 100000 al
mistaken in the decision. The tax,
: relieved under the new charter, ar
, | which are the most of the taxes of tn
. kind in the city, are not yet two yea
8 past due. and therefore the statute
I limitation could not run against them
$ Campbell w. Bushnell, who argue
e the case before the supreme court f
i Stevens. has returned and said that
his belief the amount of the taxes tn
would be uncollectable against Il
E property on street grade assessme
would amount to S465 600