Arizona republican., 1916-03-08
ROAD DISTRICT
 CASE REVERSED
Supreme Court Holds That
 Land In City at Time of Bond Issue, Need Not Pay Taxes to Take Care of Interest

The case of Frank J. Blount. F. W. Griffen, Y. C. Cook and Emil Gang, versus George A. Macdonald, treas urer and eXOfficio tax collector of Maricopa county, and the board ot supervisors, having to do with a DOT ton of section five just inside the northern city limits on Central ave nue, was reversed and remanded yes terday by the supreme court
 The court decided that such portions of the land as was in the district at the time of the issuing of the bonds, could be held taxable to aid in the paying off of the bonds, and accrued i interest, but that ali lands annexed to ] the city prior to the issuing of the ! bonds could not be taxed
 l The appellants were seeking relief from taxes placed on their land to aid in the paying of interest on road ! bonds for district number one, in which l this land at one time was included | Or January F 1909 the northwest 1 quarter of the northeast quarter of 1 section five was annexed to the city l of Phoenix. on the 21st of June in l that year the board of supervisors is | sued q series of bonds amounting to l S3O,0G0 with which to improve Central avenue on March 21. 1913. he north 1 east quarter of the northwest quarter i of section five was annexed to the city. but prior to that. on February 18th. | the board of supervisors had issued another series of bonGs for the same amount.
 The board decided that the land in these two sections should be taxed tu help pay the accrued interest on the | bonds The land holders claimed tina { as long as they were in the city linn it's the road district had no right to expect aid from them in paying off the | bonds. They stated in their petition that the county tax collector had re | fused to accept taxes from them less than the amount inclusive of the road bond tax. The case was taken to the superior court, where it was decided in favor Of the defendant supervisors
 The land holders appealed 70 the su- preme court and in the decision yes terday the court had the following to say: the facts in this ease as they appear from the complaint are that the northwest quarter of the | northeast quarter of section five was detached rom the road district and became annexed 10 the city of Phoenix l on January 12th, 1909, and comprised no part of the taxable property in such road district on June list, 1909. when the first series of road bonds Were is- | sued and sold Hence said property constituted no part of the taxable prop erty in such district and was not subject to the levy complained of. Con- 1 sequently, as concerns the portion 0! such property and it's owners. appel ant Y. C. Cook. and parties in like sit nation, the complaint states a cause of action and states facts iustifyine the issuance of restraining order. en- joining the tax collector from collect ing said tax. said levy being withou; authority Of law.
 Upon the same principles of las
 the complaint fails to state the caus, l of action as it regards the pr0porty described as the northeast quarter O the northwest quarter of section five Tor the reason such property Was iT such district at the tme both serie. of bonds were issued and sold as saiC
 fact appears from the complaint. ant 1 therefore was taxable for the purpos,
 of raising money for the redemption
 of the bonds, and for the payment O
 the interest thereon. until such in
 de2tedness is paid"
 Chief Justice Ross announced at in,
 time of the hearing of the case tha
 he was disqualified. and the remainins
 members of the court called in r. "
 Perkins of the superior court of Co
 conino county. The decision in tn,
 case was written by Justice Cunning
 ham. with the other two members O
 the court concurring.