Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-03-09
county where the sau.>is situated.

county where the sau.. IS situated.
~ts1,sA 1854, 3. 90 a ac4.
Statutes 1899, i. "a.
Il is further provided that where taxes
levied and asst ssed as required, become
delinquent 10y Eon-payInent, suit may ie
Instituted to recover The same, and the
form of the action and remedy are fully
prescribed.
Statutes 1891, 2. $50 ct seq.
The right to recover in the action under
the statute can be defeated by showing
tllat the land is situated in and has been
duly assessed il another county. and the
taxes paid Thereon.
Statute. 1885. p. 80.
The provision of this section of the
Revenue Law would seem to be sufficient
to protect the taxpayer against the iujuo-
tice of double taxation in cases Of this
character, hat our Legislature has created
i further defense against suits to recO. er
taxes IN actions by Incorporating into the
Revenue Law of IStl ,he provisions Of
the separate Act 1T l~7f to line effect. that
when real pr0pcriv j. assessed by the
County AsSe>Spr> OF fWo counties on ter
rItOrY claimed uy in3gu, the owner of the
real estate assessed - authorized to pay
said taxes in either county where he may
select. and in case Of suit being brought
for the non-paynent of taxes in the
county in which salt suit may be brought,
he production OF Il tax receipt Tor the
current year on said property, signed by
the proper officer, although in an adjoi#-
ing county claiming jurisdiction, Of Z
date prior to the commencement of said
action, shall entitle sand taxpayer to a
dismissal Of said suit free of cost.
Statutes 1891. Sec. l., p. $50,
II, rs claimed, under this Act the pay
mcnt OF the taxes to Lander County 10y
the Central Pacific Railroad Company
, created No liability Oh the part of Lander
County TO pay the same to the respond
ent, wh) WAS entitled to assess and col
lect the taxes under the provisions Of the
Revenue Law cited, in the absence Of
statutory provisions expressly creating
such liability and authorizing the action.
then ii can be said that it is within the
power of the county and the taxpayer to
change the rule OF the statute fixing the
SttHS Of the property and the rights a0d
liabilities OF the county and TAXPAYER
under other provisions Of the same Act.
In other words, au absolute right TO tan
and collect the taxes. and a right OF action
10 recover the same when delinquent tur
n~On-payment, given to Humhoidt
County, can be defeated under the cxcr-
else OF an assertion Of right by COLLISION
We do not believe that The Legislature
intended that the pra>j-i"u OF the law
should be given thu effect. and We dC
believe that, taking all the provisions re
specting the right Of action t. recover
! taxes, il was intended to relieve the tax.
payer from haraSsment 10y suits for take,
claimed by more han n county ano
assessted against the same property, anC
to leave the counties to settle their rights
to the same in an action between them
selves. We believe that this is a fair i'm
plication from the statute. We fully
realize the strength of the argumen
relating to the limited powers of coun
ties and the strictncss of the rule in tn,
ann of the exercise of those powers
2 but in other cases where rights nave beer
f created regarding taxes, and upon H.
stronger showing, have rights Of actor
| been implied. Thus, where a statute pro
! vides for a tax, but is silent as to til
, method of collection, implication of a
: intent to give a remedy by suit may b
80 strong as to be conclusive.
Cooley on Taxation, }. 435. and au
thOrities cited in Note.
Under another rule of the law must tn
contention Of the appellant fall. In tn
case of Salem vs.. Marion county. il wa
/ held that where there is no prility, stat
a utOry or cOntractual, between a city an,
a county where such county had c~ollecte,
f money for taxes belonging to the city
e that an action to recover the anne woult
e be sustained upon the principle that a
T. obligation rests upon all persons, nature
j. and artificial, to 90 justice ir~dependeI
= of any statute, so that if the county oh
e tain money or properly of others Withou
t authority Of the law, il VIII be c0mpeIie
a to make restitution.
Salem vs.. Marion County, p Ore
= gOn, 45i.
chapman VS.. The County Of Dou
glas, l07 I. 5. &57.
+ Pimental vs.. The City Of san Fran
cisco, u Cal, 362.
In the case last cited the court used tn
, following language: The city is nc
+, exempted from the common ohligatio
to do justice which binds the individual,
/ Such obligations rest upon all person
whether natural or artificial. If the cit
= obtain the money of another by mistake