Arizona republican., 1908-01-19
THE COCHISE
 COLLECTOR
Must Sue Copper Queen
 Consolidated
Supreme Court Opinion In the Case of the Delinquent Taxes of 1901.

The supreme court yesterday hand. cd down an opinion In the case of thu territory of Arizona at the relation ol Attorney General Clark against J. N Gaines, tax collector of Cochise couu- ty, for a writ of mandate to compe the collector 10 bring suit against the Copper Queen Consolidatd company to compel the payment of the balance oi the taxes of the company for the year 1901. The mandate was directed to issue. The opinion was written by Justice Nave and was concurred in by all the members of the court, Justice Doan not sitting.
 The facts appearing in the pleadings were that the property of the Copper Queen was assessed for the year 1901 by the county assessor. and that the territorial board of equalization add ed to The assessment. making the total valuation as increased s3,s33,09476 The territorial tax rate for that year was tl17 on each s100, and the tax rate of Cochise county was s2.03. Al this rate on the increased valuation. the taxes of the company amounted to tl22.657.0s. The company paid to the county treasurer s23.2e5.J6. The balance became delinquent in the sum of s9e. .ssl.33. and was entered upon the back tax book. The collector. though asked to collect this delinquent tax, re- fused to do so.
 A demurrer was entered on the part of the collector to the jurisdiction of the court, and 1t was urged that act s2 Of the laws of the Twenty second legislative assembly, under which IL was sought to compel the collector to proceed against the Copper Queen. was invalid. and that, therefore, the territory was without cause of action. IL was further shown in behalf of the respondent that the Copper Queen had brought suit against the county of Cochise and the tax collector to re- strain them from the collection of the unpaid taxes. That suit was deter mined in favor of the company in the district court. was appealed to the su- preme court, and remanded for a new trial: that the board of supervisors of Cochise county entered into a compro- mise with the company for a payment of a part of the taxes, and that there upon the case was dismissed.
 IL was also contended that the pres ent suit should have been begun in Cochise county, and that the supreme court sitting in Aaricopa county Is without Jurisdiction. In support of this contention. the respondent cited paragraph 1,2s4 of the revised statutes, Suit against county officers must be brought in the county in which the officer holds his office"
 On this point the opinion holds that this paragraph is inconsistent with the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court in any case. Original Jurisdiction Is conferred upon the court in a variety of proceedings. and among them proceedings in mandamus. Such jurisdiction must be exercised wherever the court may have its seat: the geographical limits of it are not those Of county, but those of the territory.
 As to the contention that the terri tory is without legal capacity to main- tain this action in that 1t Is not bene- ficlally interested, the court held that the petitioner was beneficially inter- ested in the collection of more than one-third of the amount due, and that while the machinery of tax collection is in the hands of the county. the county officers in the matter of collect ing the territorial taxes are acting as agents Of the territory and are not independent of !t.
 Various other objections of the re- spondent were overruled by the opin- ion which, coming down to the matter of the compromise between the board of supervisors and the Copper Queen. agrees with the contention of the at torney general, that the supervisors were without power to enter into the compromise.
 This conclusion is supported in part by the fact that the legislature of 1891 ratified the acts of certain supervis- ors who had made such compromises, but it was provided in that act that nothing contained therein should be construed to mean that boards in the future should have the right to make such compromises.
 Tn conclusion. the opinion says: under section s6 Of the revenue laws as amended by Act g.. it is the duty of the respondent in the exercise of which he Is without discretion. to bring suit to collect the delinquent taxes in question"
 -O--