Graham guardian., 1908-01-31


delinquent taxes were placed upon
the back tax book; that by virtue
of Act 90 of the laws of the 22nd
Legislative Assembly, it became
the duty of respondent to collect
said delinquent taxes by suit,
which duty respondent has neg
lected and refused to perform, AL
though demand has been made
upon him by petitioner.
Respondent demurs that this
court is without jurisdiction, that
the petitioner is not shown to have
legal capacity to maintain this
action aud that Act 92, supra, is
invalid, wherefore petitioner ha,
no cause of action. Upon the
merits respondent pleads that the
Copper Queen Consolidated Min
ing Company brought suit against
the county of Cochise and the tax
collector thereof to restrain them
from collecting or attempting to
collect the taxes in question in ex-
cess Of the amount rendered; that
this suit was determined favorably
to the company in the district court,
was appealed to this court and by it
reversed and remanded for new
trial (S Ariz 22l, 459 and II Pac.
946, rs Pac. $3.50; that thereafter
by resolution of the board of super
visors of Cochise county adopted
on June 7tb, 1904, said action was
CO mpromised; that under the COM
promise said company paid all the
taxes thereby found to be justly
and equitably due from it for the
year 1901, and pursuant to its
stipulation in the compromise, dis
missed that action on June 25th,
1904.
81. Respondent contends that
by virtue of Subd. l6, Par. 1894
r. S., he must be sued in Cochise
county, wherefors this court, sit
ting in Maricopa county, is with
out jurisdiction of this action; that
subdivision reads as follows:
"'Suits against pub lie officers
must be brought in the county IN
which the officer holds his office
Par. 1894 has reference to the
venue of cases in district courts
only. This is disclosed not mere
ly by the context, but is irresist-
ably clear when it is observed that
the provisions of that paragraph
are inconsistent with the exercise
of original jurisdiction by the Su-
preme Court in any. case. In
technical sense proceedings IN this
court do not have their venue in a
county, Original jurisdiction is
unequivocally conferred upon this
court In variety of proceedings,
among them, by Par. 3073 in pro
ceedings in mandamus. Such juris-
diction must be exercised wherever
this court may have its seat, but
the geographical limits of the juris-
diction are not those of county,
but those of the Territory. The
demurrer as to jurisdiction is not
well taken.
"2. 1t is contended that the
Territory is without legal capacity
to maintain this action, in that it
is not benefcially interested Par.
3074 r. S, requires that the writ
of mandamus shall be issued up
on affidavit on the application of
the party beneticially interested.
The petitioner has beneficial in
terest in the collection of the taxes
in question to the extent in excess
of one-third of the total amount
thereof. 1t is true, as urged by |
the respondent that the machinery
Of tax collection is in the hands of
the county officers aud that until
the taxes are collected the duty
does not devolve upon any county
officer to account for the Terri
tory's proportion of the taxes or
10 remit it. But to tie extent of
the Territorial taxes,
The officers of the county are act
ng as agents of the Territory and
not independent of or without re.
alton to the territory and its cor
oorate interest. County Of Sacra.
nento v. 9. P. r. r. Co. 81 Cal.
.57. We have no difficulty in
inding that the territory is bene
icially interested 10 this matter
within the purview of the statu e.
State v. Gracey IL New. 233.
"3. 1t is contended that act 30
upra, is obnoxious to the Harri-
on Act in the respect that it is a
pecial law. This contention has
'een before us in some aspects and
determined adversely to the con-
entlon. Wallapai NJ. & d. Co.
:. Territory, "a Pac. 81; Hughes
I. Lazard, Ariz. 4; 43 Pac. 422.
cit is now urged that the act
makes an unlawful discrimination
n that it provides for the remis-
ion of all taxes delinquent prior
0 the year 1888 and in that it i'm
oses interest on delinquent taxes {
rom January lst, 1901 only. {
"With respect to the taxes de. {
lnquent prior to the year 1888 I
he effect of the provision objected I
D is that of statute of | imitation,