The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-09
Supreme Court So Decides In Re-
gard to Kaysville City.
\ WRIT OF MANDATE
TO ISSUE, COMPELLING CITY
COUNCIL TO LEVY a TAX.
The District Court Affirmed In the
Right-of-Way Suit of Spencer
Clawson VS.. George Y. Wallace ct
al.-Mrs. Huffman Sues For
Divorce, Alleging Cruelty-Mis-
cellaneous Court Doings.


CURED in by Chief Justice Zane and
Justice Miner, was handed down in the
supreme court. affirming the judgment
of the trial court in the case of E. D.
Shepard & Co. VS.. the city council OF
Kaysville City, appellant.
This was a proceeding in mandamus
to compel the payment of a certain
judgment obtained by the REALTORS
against Kaysville City, or if that were
impossible. then to compel the city coun-
ell to levy a tax upon the taxable
property of the city for the purpose of
paying the same. Upon the hearing the
trial court ordered the writ to issue,
and the defendant appealed.
1t appeared that in October, 1890, for
the purpose of building a city hall. the
city CT Kaysville negotiated loan of
$1,000 with the respondents. issuing
therefor coupon bonds in the sum of
81, 600 each, the coupons representing in
terest, and being payable semi-annu-
ally. Default was made in the pay
men of certain of the coupons, and
thereupon in March, 1897, the respond
ent brought suit and recovered judg-
ment against the city for $405. The
city had no funds on hand to pay the
judgment, and has taken no steps to
levy any tax for the purpose of pay
ing it; nor has it any property out of
which the judgment can be satisfied
upon execution.
In answer to the petition, it was
averred that the city contains an area
of about % square miles; that not more
than two square miles of it's territory
is plated into lots and blocks; that the
city is not thickly populated through
out its entire limits. some of the plated
and unplatted portions of its corporate
limits being devoted to agricultural
purposes; that there are included with
in it's limits many farms containing u
to 119 acres; that the city authorities
know of no method by which to ascer-
tain what property is benefited by the
municipal government, and liable to
taxation for municipal purposes, and
are advised and believe the taxes which
they might levy would be unlawful,
there being no line, natural or artifi-
cial, dividing the portion of the cor
porate limits which is benefited by the
city government, from that which re-
ceives no benefit or protection there
from. and that no part of the plated
portion of its territory is benefited
more by the erection of the city hall
and Jail than any other portion. All
these facts were admitted by stipula-
ton.
The opinion says: 1T is not contend
ed that the city had no power to issue
the bonds. nor that they were not is
sued in due form of law. The conten-
ton of the appellant amounts to this,
that after having issued the bonds in
the manner prescribed by law, obtain
ed the money in a lawful manner pre-
scribed by law, obtained the money in
a lawful transaction and used 1t for
improvements and corporate
benefit, il has no authority to raise
revenue to pay the interest, and that
the creditors who have parted with
their money, in an attempt to recover
what is due. simply find themselves in
the position of a creditor who holds the
obligation of a debtor who is unable
to provide the means of payment.
"A court of justice will not. for light
reasons. give countenance to such a
so repulsive to fair deal I
ng In such case the corporate author I
ty will be carefully scrutinized, with I
view to enforce payment eff possible.
The opinion held that the city au-
.horities have power under the law to .
evy tax for the purpose Of liquidat /
ng debts incurred for city improve /
nents as long as such levy does not I
exceed the amount limited by the. stat
lte and in this case there is no pre-
ense that a levy in amount sufficient
o satisfy the judgment would exceed
such limit.
The court assumes that there is
property within the corporate limits
which is taxable for municipal purposes
md holds it the duty of the council to
ak the same and pay the judgment.
Whether such property can be readily
IT easily ascertained does not concern
he court, nor is it incumbent on the
.ourt. in this case, to decide whether
here is a natural or artificial line
which separates the taxable property
within the corporate limits from that
which is not taxable, if there be such.
II where such line is. and it is idle for
hose who are intrusted with the mum
cipal government to declare that they
annot ascertain such property. It
ray cause inconvenience, but incon-
-enience Will not excuse a failure to
'ay a legitimate debt. or satisfy
Judgment against the municipality.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.