Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1908-05-28


i Supreme Court Of South Dakota April H. 9o8J
j Appeal from Circuit Court Pennington County
Action by the Fremont Elkhon Missouri Valley company
against the County Of Pennington From judgment for
defendants, plaintiff appeals Affirmed
/ See los \. w. 92g
zoe CRAWFORD (BT White, &C Wright R W Stewart of
COUNSEL for appellant Buell. Gardner McNenny for
HANEY, PJ an action involving the validity Of eti t
e Ia remington county The facts fully ecis
ION Affirming the judgment of the circuit Fremont E. NJ
ny Co. vs. Pennington county Is D. 105 99 Two proposop
were considered: ~ Whether chapter Al, A. $780,
intended limit the ees all ms and ~ c
was the egatve intent whether the limitation the court
concluding that was the intent of legislation limit county ~
Tor all purposes mills Limitation in its natural and
reasonable operation impaired the obligation contracts Appellant
course comedies the conclusions its attack on the
ev this resting solely ground the tota county tax
rate exceeded 20 mills the dollar It must also
'e 'ha the levy OF II mills for sinking fund should in
% mi Limitation according to the unambguou statutes
Tor the mill limitation applicable only eves for purposes
other than the sinking fund.- the county by
70 make eves Tor all purposes aggregang IL II Mills
the plaintiff rendered only pay taxes resulting from
om levy is entitled relief this the exgences
the plaintiffs position and language statute compel the onc
na the legislature intended include sinking within
the om limitation If such levies by the limitation it
70 understand why the sinking fund affected linn
taton Of unless contrary appears should not
presumed n the legislature intended violate and it,
y any reasonable Interpretation of its conclusion can be
avoided the duty this court avoid Nevertheless
90 sometimes statutes which organic law and when
conflict plain and palpab reasonable doubt az to the
on All rules statutory construction designed leg
isave will The law constitutional the legislature
" De- ana nosnng else The state constitution
ions: NO law mpaing the CATION contracts shall
be passed State Con art H. city county town school
district other doing provided collection of an annual tax
pay the interest and also the principle due
all laws or ordinances providing the or prn
cpai OF any debt shall be rrepebe until pad Id art
10 Under these provisions the power so limit
sinking fund es in aboge any ordinance pro-
vdng Tor the OF the principal bonded
annual tax to the interest thereon principal
due As heretofore shown clearly by enactment
1919 to limit such ee because they embraced by mita
ton In county where levy exceeding required to
Tor bonded indebtedness and according the
era counties this years in that situation the
OF the limitation would only county
ing taxes for other than it's sinking
collection OF annual sufficient its bonded
indebtedness and the principal over the Limitation
enforcd would reduce sinking the cnst
tonal requirement. where the sinking
fund would be sufficient expressly authorizes ev;
other and requires levy sufficient pay amount due the
state for the support Of the county That was the
intention OF the Legislature require the making mentioned
levy clear that intended for other
The clause Of the statute under discussion either with the cns
uon does The Limitation prescribes is either valid and
enforceable the absolutely void and Of no
anywhere So the conclusion that this
announced in former decision be avoided Though in no
conclusive this justified considering the
decision upon taxing districts the county
affected To sustain the plaintiff be to least cast
cloud proceedings the state in every
since 1892 the state auditors disclose the limitation
question though sd 10 mills 1905 been dsrear n
large number of counties adopted OF ca tb
condition Of affairs may constitute sufc;ent reason co.
declaring the enactment unconstitutional Nevertheless il entitled %
serious consideration and es careful attention which has
given to the issues presented this appeal in our
former opinion there but which legislature can prop
ey limit county v and that providing that the total tar rate
shall exceed Of anv number ~ ro - az
dollar deem expeient purposes except The snknc fr
Inc Judgment OF the circuit court affirmed Daily Lead