Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1899-04-14

DER Lne ActS OF loof. 1877 VI 1907. 10
make "a valid levy it should have APP
peared that there had peer a deficit in
interest payments, and the levy for tn
payment of each particular class of in
terest coupons upon which default had
been made, given specifically in each
particular class, ana not dumped" in
the manner done by the board.
In the same year the commissioners
made a levy of IL mills for judgments
on past due coupons. This levy was
clearly void as the proofs show that
when the leyies were made there We're
no judgments against the county for
unpaid coupons. There was no au-
thority to levy the tax.
The proofs as to taxes for East Las
Vegas. and the levies therefor, show
that defendants made returns Of all their
property in San Miguel county, and the
particular property situated in East Las
Vegas in 1894, 1895 and 1896. For 1894
the New Mexico & Southern Pacific
property in the city limits was returned
as worth 81, 1876, which included all
property, real and personal. Upon this
return, the tax list was extended to
show a levy for city purposes upon a
valuation of $1s6, s45. The company
paid its taxes upon the property belong
ing to it, according to its return, in the
city of East Las Vegas. The assessment
roll contains no description of the prop
erty for which S1S6, S45 was put upon
the rolls.
In 1895 the company made returns
upon all its property in the city, but the
officer extended the levies upon all the
property of the company within the
county. The defendants paid city taxes
upon $66, TAI, the amount returned by
them. Again there was 10 description
of the property in the assessment rolls
or taxes.
In 1896 the same proceeding occurred.
The return of the defendant showed a
valuation of $655,0s5 on property in the
county. The tax vas levied upon a
valuation of $500 in excess of this
amount. For city purposes tax was
levied upon a valuation of $S3.374. The
railroad company paid city taxes upon
1878, 500. The assessment roll showed
again no description of the property.
The court here quotes the law with
regard to the method of making out the
tax list and requiring a designation of
the property. None Of these require
ments were complied with. No tax list
was made out and the assessment roll
does not contain a description of the
property either in the city or the coun-
ty. That which is sought to be taxed
must be shown upon the list with GER
tainty. In this case the law was ig-
nored and the assessment invalid. The
defendants paid all taxes which had
been legally assessed against them in
the city of East Las Vegas.
Plaintiff contended that if the assess
ments and levies were invalid new ones
may be made so as to be available in
this suit. Where property has escaped
taxation by failure to assess, through
error or omission, it may be made sub
ject to taxation by a new assessment.
but it cannot be done in this proceed
ing. This suit must be determined up
on facts existing at the time it was
brought. The fact that defendants re-
turn did not specify the property with
in the city, nor describe it, did not ex-
cuse the officer from segregating it. As
the case stands the city is powerless to
collect more than defendant has paid.
The invalidity of the tax for school
district No. l in 1896 is conceded by the
territory. Defendant had $17,50O of
property in the district and paid 3 mills
tax thereon; the balance is void.
In the years 1894, 1895 and 1896 special
leyies were ordered by the board in Or
der to liquidate certain judgments OBJ
tanned in 1892 to 1896 inclusive. The
judgments amounted to more than $50
900 and were taken by consent, in most
cases, of the district attorney. They
were for current expenses and not for
bonds or interest coupons, or what is
known as the public debt. If judgment
had not been granted they would have
been payable from taxes derived from
the usual county levy, which the law
limits to 3 mills on the dollar. The fact
that they were placed in Judgment does
not change the status, so that the entire
paramount may be eXacted in a single
year without regard to the statutory
limitation. If it were otherwise there
would be no limit to taxation for ordi-
nary county expenses and statutory
limitation would be valueless, for an I'M
scrupulous county board could bankrupt
any county in the territory by mourning
and allowing debts on which judgments
could be taken. While claims against
the county remain as allowances or in
warrants, no matter how great the az
gregate, no more than 3 mills can be
levied to pay them. This limitation was
intended to protect tax payers and com
pei county boards to limit current eX-
penses.
While a judgment cannot be inquired
into or cannot be attacked in a col
lateral proceeding, inquiry into con-
s%ideration of a judgment is not a
collateral attack, for the judgment re-
mains for the debt, and is not sought to
be set aside. The manner of its pay
ment is a different matter. A iudg-
ment is simply an item of expense and
merging a claim of this kind into a
Judgment will not enable commissioner
to make a levy for its payment in excess
of the limitation of 3 mills. The iudg-
ment may not be set aside but the
board cannot levy a tax to pay the
same which is not authorized by law.
In conclusion the court says: II
therefore hold that the board had no au-
thority to make special levies to pay
these judgments, but that they were
payable only as other county charges
and from the fund derived from the
general levy for county purposes, and
were subject to the limitation of 8 mills
as other county charges are. The
Judgment will be for the defendants for
COSTS"