Case Name: CHARLES M. PARADIS, Tax Collector of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Respondent, v. FRANK E. SMITH, Auditor of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1923-12-06
Citations: 38 Idaho 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES M. PARADIS, Tax Collector of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Respondent, v. FRANK E. SMITH, Auditor of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Appellant.
Judges: McCarthy, Dunn, William A. Lee and Wm. E'. Lee, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
(December 6, 1923.)
CHARLES M. PARADIS, Tax Collector of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Respondent, v. FRANK E. SMITH, Auditor of the County of Washington, State of Idaho, Appellant.
[222 Pac. 779.]
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. B. S. Varian, Judge.
Action to enjoin county auditor from making excess charges against tax collector. Judgment for plaintiff.
Affirmed.
Fred C. Erb and George Donart, for Appellant.
Harris, Stinson & Harris, for Respondent.
Richards & Haga, J. B. Eldridge, Charles H. Darling and J. A. Gallaher, Amici Curiae.
E. A. Walters and R. P. Parry, Amici Curiae.
Counties are not entitled to urge objections which could be urged by individuals. (7 R. C. L. 926; 15 C. J. 388, 389; City of Santa Monica v. Los Angeles County, 15 Cal. App. 710, 115 Pac. 945.)
Counties have no right under tax law which legislature cannot later change or vary. (Erskine v. Steele Cmmty, 87 Fed. 630, 98 Fed. 215; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Board of Commrs., 106 Fed. 123, 45 C. C. A. 233; Creighton v. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 446, at 450; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 18 Sup. Ct. 617, 42 L. ed. 1047; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. 40, 52 L. ed. 151; Williamson v. New Jersey, 130 U. S. 189, 9 Sup. Ct. 453, 32 L. ed. 915.)
Property held by a county, as a result of, or an incident to, its taxing power, is held by the county in its public or governmental capacity. (State ex rel. Bell v. Cummings, 130 Tenn. 566, 176 S. W. 290, L. R. A. 1915D, 274; 15 C. J. 632; 37 Cyc. 1355, 1356.)

Opinion:
BUDGE, C. J.
— In this case the facts and questions of law are substantially the same as those presented to this court in the case of Washington County v. Paradis, ante, p. 364, 222 Pac. 775. Upon the authority of that case the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.
McCarthy, Dunn, William A. Lee and Wm. E'. Lee, JJ., concur.