The Princeton union., 1901-10-31
The |. |||] COUNTY WINS.
Judge Baxter Hands Down a Decis.
ION Adverse to the Claims of
~ Princeton Village.
The Act Of 1905 Relates as Much to
* Princeton as to Any Other
Il. IF Part of County.

The village of Princeton cannot
claim from the county fund the moneys
derived from the county road and
bridge fund upon property assessed by
the county commissioners within the
village limits OF Princeton. Judge
Baxter has so decided in a decision
just filed with Clerk of Court Briggs.
The case came on for trial at the Sep
tember term, and counsel for the county
and village were requested to submit
their briefs on the matter. Judge
Baxter says:
After argument by counsel for the respective
parties, submitted in writing, find from the
evidence introduced at the trial, and the ad-
missions of the parties to said action, as facts:
''Ihat the allegations contained in the writ of
mandamus herein are not sustained by the
evidence.
LAS conclusions of law I find: list That
the respondent is entitled to judgment herein
quashlng the alternative writ issued in this
action. and denying the relief sought thereun-
der. 20. That neither party to this action is
entitled to costs. And Judgment is hereby or
dered accordingly
The notes by Judge Baxter on this
more i or less celebrated case are as
follows:
by Chapter :,S7, Gen. Laws of 1895, a county
road and bridge fund was provided for the
taxes levied and collected for said fund to be
expended by the county commissioners
! is the taxes levied and collacto6 ,,por
property within the village OF Princeton, for
such fund that are in controversy in this ac-
| tion.
| The relator contends that the taxes so COL
lected and paid over to the treasurer of Mile
| Lacs county should be returned to said village
as by Sec. 81 OF Chap. 81, Special Laws of 1889
it is provided. that all taxes levied within the
limits of said village for road purposes, and
! collected by the treasurer of Mile Laos county
shall be paid by him to the treasurer OF said
village upon the warrant of the county auditor:
Il am unable to agree with REALTORS counsel
in the construction he places upon this statute
The fund provided for by the statute first
above freferred to is for county purposes, as
l much 80 as though raised for any other proper
purpose and the village Of Princeton is>bound
to bear its share of the burden thus inapos y
said Section 81 Chap. 81 oi
the laws OF 1885, was 1st. to constitute the viii
lage of Princeton single road district: end. to
make all road taxes payable in money: 3rd, to
provide the manner in which such money
should be expended; and 4th. to provide the
manner in which such taxes should reach the
| village treasurer. and come under the control
of the village council.
| There is nothing in said statute to indicate
that the legislature intended to exempt the
property OF said village from it's share of the
| county taxes. It simply means that all taxes
| levied for road purposes bv said village for it's
own special use and benefit, shall be collected
! and expended in the manner therein directed
and not that the village shall be exempt from
paying its proper share of the taxes levied for
county purposes whether for road and bridge
fund or other purpose.
1T is true that the law creating a road and
bridge fund was not enacted until 1895, but
| when enacted it related as much to Princeton
as to any other part Of Mile Laos county. Said
law in no way conflicts with the other statute
above referred to, but if it did, the general law
in matter of this l1ind-proyiding for taxation
would prevail
1T is not claimed that the county holds any
money received from said village prior to the
passage of said act of 1895. and it is not there
fore, necessary to comment further upon the
case
The decision of Judge Baxter will
probably end the legal controversy,
and the village will have to get along
with such taxes as it may levy itself.
A stay OF so days was granted.