The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-04-26
MUST REPAY TAI
Supreme Court Decides Mont
gOmery County Case.
Total of SIS Property Owners
Must Make Second Payment.

Under a special opinion handed
down today by the supreme court SIS
Montgomery county property owners
must make a second payment of their
taxes. The court reversed a decision
of the Montgomery county district
court which issued a writ of manda-
mus to compel Charles A. Mitchell,
country treasurer, to issue receipts for
the tax money.
The property owners are residents
of south Montgomery county. Last
fall they paid their taxes to the
Weaver Realty company of Coffey-
Vile The realty company then de-
State bank of that town. The COM
pany owned a controlling interest in
the bank stock. When the deposit
credits were turned over to the county
treasurer and he sought to withdraw
the money, the bank protested the
missioners that the institution was in
solvent and closed its doors.
Brough: Mandamus Proceedings.
Mitchell held that the taxes could
be paid only thru the county treas
urers office and arranged to issue tax
warrants to compel individual prop
erty owners to pay the money into his
office. Frank N. Skinner and 874
other taxpayers brought mandamus
receipts A writ was issued by the trial
court and appeal taken to the SUI
preme court. The supreme court held
today that the money must now be
paid a second time. There was no
provision under the law, the. court
pointed out, permitting payment OF
taxes thru an agent.
Made Payment at Own Risk.
In consequence the taxpayers made
payments to the realty company at
their own risk. When the bank failed
with their money in it, they could not
be relieved of responsibility to the
county.
1t was asserted that 81 per cent of
the banks stock was owned by the
realty company. A total of $4,000
was paid in taxes to the company The
supreme court reverses the order
granting a peremptory write of manda-
mus and remands the case with df-
rections to quash the writ.
Opinion by Justice Porter.
In the opinion written by Justice
Silas Porter, the court by unanimous
action directs issuance of per
emptory writ for collection of the
taxes from property owners, and de-
fines the status of the case in the fol
lowing summary:
1.-The court is powerless to relieve tht
hardships that must result to this grea
number of taxpayers who believed wheT
they parted with their money that theil
taxes were paid. But equitable considera
tions cannot prevail against statutory re
quirements and the rights of the public tt
the collection of public funds in accordance
with statutory rules is paramount to th'
rights of the individual
wholly aside from any facts developed
at the oral presentation of these cases, e
which some reference has been made II
the course of the opinion. it must be helt
that upon the bare statements of the plead
ing itself no cause of action is stated IL
the alternative writ.
because of the reasons given for sus
pending the order of the court in the sam'
action restraining the sheriff from per
forming his duties, it follows that in thu
action by the county attorney the peremp
tory writ will issue directing the sheriff
to proceed with the collection of the ia!
warrants. In the action brought by tn
taxpayers the Judgment is reversed and tn,
cause remanded with direction to quasi
/ the writ