Semi-weekly register. (Brookings, Brookings Co., S.D.) 1894-1898, 1898-11-04

To your communication handed me
on the evening of the 3lst ult., re-
questing my official opinion on the
following questions:
81. To what fund should the in.
terest collected on delinquent taxes
be apportioned?"
"2 Should the interest collected on
delinquent taxes be treated as fine:
and
SO. Are cities that are organized
under a special charter entitled to in
terest collected on delinquent taxes?'
| have the honor to reply as follows:
/. The interest collected on delin-
quent taxes should be apportiOned to
the fund forwhich the TAX was levied.
For example, interest collected on de.
linquent taxes levied by township
for township purposes should be ap-
portioned to the township fund of
that township; interest collected on
delinquent taxes levied for school pur-
poses should be apportioned to the
school fund for which the tax was
levied; interest collected on delin-
quent taxes levied for general purpos-
es of the county should be apportioned
to the county general fund and so on.
There is no rule of law better set
tied than that the interest on a
public fund belongs to the fund
in the absence Of express statu-
tory provision to the contrary. This
rule was recognized and enforced in
the recent case of Tacoma School
District No. 10 vs. Hedges, Treasurer.
AZ Pac., 522) brought by school dis
trct against county treasurer to
compel him to apportion to it's
school fund the interest collected on
the taxes levied for school purposes.
In that case the supreme court Of
Washington, speaking by Chief JUS
tice Hoyt, says, "What is the proper
disposition of interest and penalty
collected upon delinquent taxes? is
the question presented by this record.
1t is claimed on the part Of appellant
County treasurer) that they should
90 into the general fund of the county
for the payment of the salaries Of
county officers. The respondent
School districD contends that the
amount paid as penalty and interest
is an increase Of the tax on account
of which it is paid, and should be
credited to the same fund; that each
of the funds for which taxes are
levied is entitled to such proportion
of the penalty and interest as the tax
so levied bears to the entire tax. In
the absence Of any statute upon the
subject, or course of practice having
like force, this contention must be
sustained. The imposition Of the
penalty must be presumed to have
been for the benefit of the tax upon
which such interest and penalty are
assessed, and, if for the benefit
of such tax as as a whole, the money
belonging to each fund which goes to
make up the entire tax should re-
ceive its proportion; and it would
make no difference whether the pen
atty and interest were imposed as
compensation for delay in receiving
the money, as an inducement for the
taxpayer to make prompt payment, or
as a punishment for delay. In either
case that upon which the collection
was founded would be entitled to the
benefit thereof, and each of the funds
would be entitled to its pro rata
share. The authorities upon the sub
ject are not numerous, but the only
ones which have been cited support
this contention"
See also Board of Commissioners VS.
State, % N. E. 10.
People VS. Reis (CaD JS Pac. 3O9.
State VS. Hutfaker, IL New, 300.
State VS. Bowker, Kan. ia.
This doctrine was reaffirmed in
Thayer, City Treas. vs. Mlsh, County
Treas, 43 Pac. 40.
Not only is there no provision of
statute to the contrary, but Sec. 50,
Chap %, Laws 1897, which is a re-enact-
ment of Sec. 80, Chap. IA, Laws 1891 ,ex-
pressly provides: 1.-THE county treasurer
shall Immediately after each (monthly
settlement pay over to the treasurer
of any municipal corporation or any
organized township, or any body pol