Case Name: STATE v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARAMIE COUNTY
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1893-08-29
Citations: 4 Wyo. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARAMIE COUNTY.
Judges: Claek, J., concurs.
Reporter: Wyoming Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 313–334

Head Matter:
STATE v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARAMIE COUNTY.
Revenue — Liability oe County to State — Certificate oe Double ob Ebeoneous Assessments.
1. In certifying double and erroneous assessments to tbe State for tbe purpose of obtaining credit for tbe amount thereof upon its liability for tbe tax levy of any particular year, a county is not limited to the time within which by statute the county collectors of revenue are required to exhibit their annual accounts and vouchers or to make their annual settlements with the financial officers of the State for such year.
2. Such annual settlements are not so conclusive as to preclude a county from having credit for double or erroneous assessments, although the same are subsequently certified.
(Groesbeck, C. J., dissenting.)
[Decided August 29, 1893
Re-hearing denied February 28, 1894.]
ERROR to the District Court of Laramie Comity. Hopt. RichaRD H. Scott, Judge.
Action by the State against the hoard of county commissioners of the county of Laramie for a balance alleged to be due upon the tax levy of the year 1888. The amended petition alleged that the levy for territorial tax in that year originally due from the county amounted to $64,417; that there had been paid thereon $50,770.27, and that a credit for double and erroneous assessments had been allowed amounting to $5,629.43, making a total credit of $56,399.70. That on December 17, 1888, there was presented on behalf of the county a claim for rebate on account of double and erroneous assessments, including $967.41 of taxes which had been levied prior to 1888, and that the same had not been previously certified. The same was disallowed by the auditor. That on December 16, 1889, a similar claim was presented, including $7,054.73 for taxes which had been levied in the year 1888, but said claim had not been previously presented. That claim was disallowed by the auditor. It was admitted that the sums so claimed and disallowed represented double or erroneous assessments for the years mentioned, but it was further alleged that in December, 1888, immediately following the presentation of the claim for credit or rebate, filed December 17, 1888, the auditor did audit, adjust and settle the claim of Laramie county for rebates for that year, and notified the territorial treasurer thereof. It was therefore contended that the claim made in December, 1888, for taxes levied in prior years, and that made in December, 1889, for taxes levied in 1888, were not presented or certified in time to entitle the county to any credit therefor.. A general demurrer was filed, which was sustained, and judgment finally entered in favor of defendant. The State prosecutes error.
Charles N. Potter, Attorney General, for plaintiff in error.
The sole question is, when must a claim be made under section 3836 Rev. Stat., 1887, to entitle a county to credit for double or erroneous assessments? Is there any limit? A strict construction of the statutes requires a claim for rebate upon the tax for any year, to be presented on or before the third Monday of December of that year; and certainly not later than the time in January following when the county treasurer is required to settle with the State treasurer. (Rev. Stat., Secs. 3837 & 1698 — also 1699-1704.) Even if the provisions of Sec. 1698 were directory as to time, it must not be so construed as to render the time without any limit. A full and complete settlement cannot be made unless the accounts are all made up and adjusted. There is no provision for subsequent settlements.
On petition for rehearing: It is not a question whether the settlements are conclusive or not. The county should exercise diligence in collecting the taxes, and discovering mistakes in the assessments. The whole purpose of the statutes is to fix a time within which a county may claim credit for such mistakes. That time ought to, and does end when the liability of the county collector of revenue becomes complete. The State is entitled to the tax from the county, whether it is collected or not. The liability of the county is not fixed by the settlement, strictly speaking, but by operation of law.
J. A. Van Orsdel, County Attorney, for defendant in error.
A county occupies very much the same relation to the State as to payment of taxes that a citizen occupies to the county. The taxes are not delinquent until November 30. (Rev. Stat., Sec. 3819.) To enforce the collection of the tax, the collector would be required to give four weeks notice by publication before he could expose the property for sale. (Rev. Stat., Sec. 3812.) This would extend the time to January. The law also provides that if any person shall pay any tax which shall be thereafter found to be erroneous or illegal, the money may be refunded to the tax payer. Section 1698 is directory as to time. The accounting had under that section is only of matters up to the date of such accounting. The proposition that the county cannot thereafter have credit for erroneous assessments not previously discovered is unfair and inequitable. Statutes providing for revenue are to be liberally interpreted in favor of the tax payer (Sutherland on Stat. Const.). So long as the county remains liable for erroneous assessments it has the right to certify the same to the State, and hold the same either as a rebate, or as a claim which the State is bound under the law to refund.
On petition for rehearing: Under the revenue laws the State and county stand in the relation of principal and agent. Their interests are not adverse. Very few erroneous assessments, considering the time for collecting taxes, could become known to the county before the first Monday in January, the date of the settlement with the State treasurer; therefore it could not have been intended that a full and complete settlement which would absolutely close the matter, should be made at that time.

Opinion:
Cost aw ay, Justice.
This cause comes up on petition and general demurrer. The district court sustained the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff declined to plead further, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. This is assigned as error.
The action is by the State of Wyoming against the county of Laramie for the recovery of $967.41 on account of taxes overdue and unpaid for the year or years prior to 1888; and for the recovery of $7,054.73 on account of taxes overdue and unpaid for the year 1888. Defendant in error denies its liability for these taxes because they are founded on double or erroneous assessments duly certified as such, and demurs to the petition as showing such facts. Plaintiff in error contends that such certification of double and erroneous assessments and the claim for credits on account thereof were not made by or on behalf of the county in time to be considered. The double and erroneous assessments mentioned as occurring prior to 1888 were rebated by the county during that year, and the sum of $967.41 of territorial taxes consisting of such double and erroneous assessments occurring prior to the year 1888 was rebated by the county of Laramie to the tax payers during the year 1888; and such double and erroneous assessments were formally certified and claim for a credit of said sum made on behalf of the county of Laramie in its annual settlement with the territory for the year 1888. This claim was not allowed by the territorial auditor, but the county declined to abide by his decision, .and withheld the sum from the amount found due from the county to the territory by the territorial auditor at the annual settlement for the year 1888, and has failed and refused to pay the sum into the territorial or State treasury.
The double and erroneous assessments mentioned as occurring during the year 1888 were rebated during the year 1889, and the sum of $7,054.73 of territorial taxes, together with other taxes, consisting of such double and erroneous assessments occurring during the year 1888, were rebated by the county of Laramie to the tax payers during the year 1889; and such double and erroneous assessments were certified, and claim for a credit of said sum made on behalf of the county in its annual settlement with the territory for the year 1889. This claim was not allowed by the territorial auditor, but the county declined to abide by his decision and withheld this sum from the amount found due from the county to the territory by the territorial auditor at the annual settlement for the year 1888, and has failed and refused to pay this sum into the territorial or State treasury. This, in brief, is the showing of facts made by the petition, to which a general demurrer was sustained.
It is clear that the taxes in controversy consist of double and erroneous assessments — assessments that never should have been made.
The county is responsible to the State for the entire amount of tax levied for territorial or State purposes on the taxable property within the county, whether -collected or not, except "such amounts as are certified to be double or erroneous assessments." Rev. Stat., Sec. 3836.
The amounts sued for in this action are so certified, but it is urged that such certification came too late. This contention is based upon the sole ground that the. annual settlements of the "collectors of the revenue," with the territorial or State auditor are final and conclusive. We have no statute expressly making them so. It is true our law, R. S., Sec. 1700, authorizes the auditor to issue summary process upon this settlement against the collector for the amount found due the State, with penalties and forfeitures. But even under such statutes as this, by a consensus of authorities singularly uniform, the settlement by the auditor is not conclusive. The courts may correct it if erroneous. It is not in the nature of a judgment of a court. It is not conclusive against the collector himself who participates in it. Cooley on Taxation, 2nd Ed., p. 718. By a much stronger reason it is not con- elusive against the county. This disposes of the only question presented in the record.
Something was said in argument about Sec. 3837., R. S., requiring county treasurers to make, under a penalty, a full and complete settlement with the territorial or State treasurer on the first Monday in January in each year for the tax levy of the preceding year. ISTo such settlement is referred to in the petition. The question is not raised upon this settlement but upon the preceding settlement with the auditor. The county treasurer makes both settlements. If by either or both, he can give away the county revenue or bind the county to the payment of unjust or unauthorized charges in favor of the State, and make such injustice final and conclusive upon the county, it is a bad state of affairs. We think that such is not the law of this case.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Claek, J., concurs.