Arizona republican., 1905-04-04
WHEN THE LIEN ATTACHES
The Opinion in the Aztec Land and
 Cattle Company Case.

There appears to have. been a mis- understanding regarding the decision of the supreme court last Thursday in a very important and interesting suit, the Aztec Land and Cattle company, appellant against the county of Maya jo, in which the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. The facts leading up to the action were as follows: In May, 1886, the Atlantic and Pacific railroad for a valuable consideration made, executed and delivered to the land and cattle company it's warranty deed to certain lands known as indem- nifty lands to the grant to the railroad company and commonly called lieu lands. The railroad company had reg ularly selected all such lands long be- fore but the selection was not approN- ed by the secretary of the interior un- til the 30th day of March, 1903. The lands were assessed for taxes by the county of Navajo between the first Monday in February and the first Monday in June of the year 1903 and the taxes were paid by the appellant under an agreement or stipulation. This action was therefore brought by the appellant to recover from the county the taxes so paid.
 In passing upon the case the court 
 the selection of the lieu lands which would subject them to local taxation until approval of the selection had been made by the secretary of the in terior. So the question to be deter mined was whether the lands to which the appellant had acquired right on March 30, 1903, were rightly assessed by the county for taxes for that year.
 The opinion quoting the laws of the territory bearing on the question con tinues as follows:
 Tt will be observed that our stat utes provide that between the first Monday in February and the first Monday in June of each year the as sessor shall list and assess the real and personal property subject to taxa tion, and that no definite day is fixed at which time such property shall be subject to assessment and taxation. Tn this respect our law differs from that of many, if not nearly all, the states where such definite day Is fixed and established by law; and the num- erous decisions in such jurisdictions holding that property acquired after such fixed day is not subject to tax alton for that year. have no direct ap- plication to the case before us. Un- der our law it is clearly the duty of the assessor between the dates named in the statute to assess property sub ject to taxation that he may find in the county, and in the absence in the stat ute of any fixed date at which prop erty then owned shall be assessed for a given year, it is his duty within that time to assess for that year all prop erty subject to taxation, whether ac- quired prior or subsequent to the first of EsraI.,- that the statute provides that the lien of the tax shall attach on the first day of February, while it may by GUS tom afford a convenient date for the vendor and vendee to determine as be- tween themselves who shall take the burden of the payment of the tax, make it, in the absence of such eX- press provision as we have referred to. any less the duty of the assessor to assess, during the period while such assessment is in progress, all such property as he may find to be taxable and untaXed, though acquired by the owner subsequent to the date when the lien attaches. The property in question, therefore, though acquired by the appellant subsequent to February first. but prior to June first, and as- sessed prior to the last mentioned date. was legally subject to taxation for that year.
 Our opinion is in accord with the views expressed by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Hunnewel vs. Cass county. 9 Wal lace. 464; and by the supreme court of Nebraska under similar statute, in the case of Jones vs. Seward county. The judgment of the district court is af- frmed."