The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-07-07
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
Decided By Judge Rolapp at Yester
days Session.

Judge Rolapp's decision in the case Of
Haywood VS.. the county commissioners
was handed down yesterday and is
against the county. This action was a
test case affecting the legality of sales
of property made by the commissioners
property which had passed to the
county by reason of tax deed.
The action came up on APPLICATION for
q writ of mandate. the petitioner insist
ing that he had right TO buy in prop
erty and have a deed issue when his
bid was the highest. The commission
ers insisted that they need not accept
any bid unless same was equal to the
taxes and accrued costs against the
property.
After reviewing the circumstances in
the case and legislation affecting it,
the judge says, in conclusion:
1.-THE sale. under section 1855, would
simply amount to an idle ceremony. re-
peated each year with an increased
minimum price, until such price would
eventually reach several times the ac-
tual market value of such property.
Besides, under the sale. in pursuance of
section 300, there could be no question
that any sum in excess of the taxes,
costs and interests might be accepted
by the county for the property sold,
and the money thus received be appro-
the sale differs from the original tax
sale, at which only the amount equal
to the taxes and costs can be accept
ed. With this benefit can It be con-
tended that the county should not cor
respondingly take any losses which
may result? Clearly not. Looking at
the question from whatever standpoint
it would seem certain TO have been the
intention of the legislature to have the
-
these properties and have them again
placed upon a basis where revenue can
be collected for government purposes,
1 think that the writ ought to issue
compelling the county commissioners
TO execute the deed to petitioner upon
the payment of the amount bid"
CAN'T HOLD OVER.
Judge Roiapp also denied the petition
of H. T. Snyder VS.. II. 5. Emerson,
city auditor This is an important de-
cision. as it affects the claims of all
those appointive city officers attempt
ing TO hold office by virtue of powers
supposed to belong to the police and fire
commission. After reviewing the stat
utes at considerable length. Judge Ro-
lapp in denying the petition, says:
Therefore, the petitioner, not being
an officer for life, under the fire and
police commission act, he was simply
an appointive officer and minor agent.
whose term of Office expired two years
after his appointment. or, at all events,
at any municipal election following his
appointment, and, consequently, he has
only held over since the last municipal
election, and his salaries and duties
ceased from the time of the appoint
ment of his successor This case does
not involve the question of the power Of
removal of an officer appointed for q
fixed period; the petitioners fixed term
as an appointive officer had expired,
and he was simply holding over that
part of his tenure which permitted him
10 act after the fixed term until such
time as his successor should be ap-
pointed and qualified"
SHORT ORDERS.
Sidney Stevens VS.. L. r. Rogers; five
days additional time was granted de-
PENDANT to plead to amended com
plant.
Thomas Maloney and A. J. Weber
formally entered their appearance as
attorneys in actions affecting Sidney
Stevens.
The Utah National bank filed suit
against Z. and r. Ballantyne to recover
$3.50 %. with costs, etc.
Before Judge Hart yesterday the case
of George Stratton VS.. George Barr for
S25, 600 damages was heard. This action
grows out of the not foot" affair
Stratton had his foot burned in Bars
saloon, and claims Barr was response
bic for the fact.