Graham guardian., 1908-01-31

lnereol, lOSetner WIN certain peu-
altes and costs, by suit. This
provision is also general IN its ap-
plication. We cannot affirm that
any of the classifications involved
are unreasonable or unjust. The
principles governing such an in
quiry have been adequately treat
ed in former opinions. Bennett
v. Nichols, (Ariz.) 50 P. 393, San
ford v. Tucson, 8 Ariz. 2O3; II
Pac. 500. This act, in the features
considered, is not obnoxious either
to the letter or the spirit Of the
organic law.
"a. Upon the merits, as we
have shown, respondent presents
as his excuse for refusing to insti-
tute suit to collect the unpaid tax
es in question and as bar to the
issuance of writ of mandate to
bring such suit, the acts of the
board Of supervisors and the Cop
per Queen Consolidated Mining
Company in compromise of suit
to restrain the collection of these
taxea. The attorney general main
tains that the board of supervisors
had no power to compromise the
action and contends that the mat
ter Is now to be resolved by the
application of the doctrine STARE
DECIsIs. He refers us to the case
of Schuerman v. Territory, So P.
1884. We decided that case by
divided bench without rendering
an opinion, Mr.. Just ice Sloan not
sitting.
"It is true that the judgment
there affirmed determined (among
other matters) the precise point
now before us; but the afirmance
being by divided court, it does
not have the force of a cogent pre-
cedent. Etting v. U. S. Bank, IL
Wheat. SO Wherefore, We will
inquire into the matter involved as
if it were a matter of novel i'm
preston.
Respondent finds IN Par. 973
K. S. tull authority for the board
of supervisors to make the com.
promise in question. By SUBJ
division of that paragraph there is
nferred upon boards of super
visors the power to direct and
control the prosecution and de
fense of all suits to which the
county is party, and to compro-
mise the same.' The defendants
in the SUIT in question were the
county of Cochise and M ID.
Scrlbner, the tax collector of that
county.
"Under our reve nue. law, the
board of supervisors has super
visory function to perform in the
assessment and collection of taxes,
but assessment and collection do
not directly devolveupon that body
Assessments are made by the
county assessor, and may be raised
or lowered by the county board of
equalization The county board
OF equalization, although It's per-
sonnel is that of the board of sup
visors, IS distinct tribunal, and
Is not the board of supervisors.
Moreover, after the board of equal
ization has performed its duties of
rectifying under-valuations or over
valuations, it has exhausted its
functions. The collection Of taxes
then devolves upon the tax collec-
tor, over whom the board Of sup.
ervisors exercises only the same
control which it exercises over all
other county officers.
"The County of Cochise, as
municipal body, was not proper
party to the suit brought by the
Copper Queen Consolidated Cop
per Mining Company to restrain
the collection of the tax assessed
upon it by the board Of equaliza-
ton, and which by virtue of that
assessment it became the duty ofI
the tax collector to collect. It
follows that the board of supervis.
ors did not derive authority from
the provision above quoted to COM
promise this suit. Its authority
would be more appropriately at
tributable to another provision off
the same paragraph comforting up
on that board authority "to do
and perform all other acts and |
things which may be necessary to
the full discharge Of the duties of
the chief legislative authority of
the chief legislative authority of
the county government" But our
system Of revenue collection is in
wltha theory that un-
der that, or any other provision,
u board of supervisors may raise,
lower, or remit taxes. The only
powers possessed by such boards
are those expressly conferred by
statue or necessarily implied there
from.
Santa Cruz County v. Barnes,
Ariz.) rs Pac 62l
estate v. G. P. r. r Co. New. 70.
Jurisdiction to remit or com.
promise taxes we should find con-
terred in express terms carefully
conditioned; it may not be pre-
licted upon an Inference We