The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-15

In the case of A. A. Taylor vs.. A. III.
Robertson, appellant, the supreme court
yesterday handed down an opinion affirm
ing the Judgment of the district court.
The plaintiff sued 10 recover thu value of
l52 sheep sold by the defendant in his
capacity of assessor OF Grand county for
taxes.
TAYLOR resided in Utah county and the
sheep were taken into Grand county in
January 1897, for grazing purposes. The
assessor found the flock of 300 II Grand
county on Feb. IS, 1897, in charge or a
herder and the assessor had been IN
formed that arrdngeme ntS mad been mace
TO take the sheep into another county.
The assessor on Feb. Is. 1897, assessed
the sheep and the tax amounted TO SSi.l2.
The defendant refused to pay the tax,
contending that the sheep were not as
sessable IN Grand county as they had al
ready been assessed in Utah county Inc
assessor then proceeded to sell and did
sell l52 of the flock to satisfy the tax.
The trial court found that when the as
sessment was made on Feb. Is, 1897, the
defendant had no cause TO DeleVs that
the plaintiff was likely to avoid the pay
menu of the taxes on the sheep by diSpos-
ing of them or by removal thereof from
the state, that defendant seizure was
wrongful and as conclusion OF law round
that the defendant had no authority in
law for assessing the sheep on the 18TH
day of February, 1877, nor at any other
time prior TO March l. 1897; that no juris-
was entitled 10 judgment for the value
of the Sheep.
This ruling the supreme court affirmed.
The opinion was written by Justice Miner
and concurred in by Chief Justice Zane
and Justice Bartch.
The court, in the opinion, found fault
with the abstract because il was defective
and did not contain material and import
ant testimony given at the trial, making
it very hard for the court to arrive at
a proper conclusion in the matter, and
made this criticism so that in future alb
stracts shall be made out so as TO con-
tain such parts of the record and teSti-
mony, under the rules, as Will fairly pre-
sent the case for review.
On the question as to whether or not
the assessor had jurisdiction under the
statute to assess property on the 18th
of February. and collect the tax by q
sale of $50 head of sheep. the court says:
IF the assessor had Jurisdiction and
exercised his honest Judgment in assess
ing and collecting the tax if he acted in
the performance of an official duty, and
confined himself within the limits of the
statute; if his motives were honest, he
should not be held civilly liable, although
he ma have erred in his judgment. Dis
erection. when vested in an officer. how
ever. does not mean absolute or arbitrary
power. The discretion must be exercised
in a reasonable manner, and not malic-
iously wantonly and arbitrarily to the
wrong and injury of another.
This is held TO be the rule applicable
to public officers who are bound to eXer-
else their deliberate judgment in the dis
charge of their official duties. and is ap
plicable to all inferior magistrates and
others called to the performance of func-
tions in their nature and character quasi
judicial. while acting within the juris-
diction and the legal scope of their pow
erS as fixed by law"
The court further finds that the evil
dent object of the several provisions of
section %, page 435, of the revenue laws
is to render assessment of horses. cattle
sheep, etc, uniform, and the collection
of the tax certain, and at the same time
allow the county where the stock was
wintered or summered its proportion of
the tax assessed upon the owner in the
county where he resides
The act of going into a flock of $500
sheep and selecting 152 head and selling
them Unfortunately at Is cents a head
is held TO have been improper, and as
the question of the legality or constitu-
tionality OF the statute had not been
raised by either party. the court does not
pass upon it.