TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cunningham v. Moody

CUNNINGHAM, County Auditor v. MOODY, State Auditor

Cunningham v. Moody, 28 P. 395 (Idaho 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 27, 1891
Judges
Huston, Morgan, Sullivan
Citations
28 P. 3953 Idaho 12535 Am. St. Rep. 2691891 Ida. LEXIS 3
Syllabus
Taxes for State Purposes — Deduction for Collecting not Allowed. — All taxes levied, and collected for state purposes must be ■ paid into the state treasury, without any deductions for commissions or other charges. Pees of County Auditor — Law Repealed. — Such partsi of section 1679 and subdivision 5 of section 2157 of the Revised Laws of Idaho as relate to fees of the county auditor for services in connection with the assessment and collection oi taxes are repealed by section 4, page 179 of the Pirst Session Laws of Idaho. (Syllabus by the court.)
Summary
No briefs filed in the ease.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morgan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORGAN, J.

Petitioner asks the court for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to allow his account at the rate of three per cent upon the sum of $149.96 belonging to the state, and collected in Boise county, under section 1679, and the fifth subdivision of section 2157 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho. To the petition the respondent interposes a general demurrer. Section 4 of an act concerning fees and compensation of county officers (1st Sess. Laws Idaho, p. 179), so far as it relates to the compensation of the auditor in the assessment and collection of taxes, is as follows: “As the auditor, he is allowed and may receive, when not otherwise provided by law, fees as follows: For all services in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes and other duties relating to revenue, for each year, except licenses, ten cents per name.” Section 8 of the same act provides “that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.” Such parts of section 1679, and subdivision 5 of section 2157 of the Revised Statutes, as relates to the fees of the *126 county auditor, are plainly inconsistent with the provisions of section 4 of the first Session Laws, as above quoted, and are therefore repealed. The auditor is allowed ten cents per name for all his services in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes, and no, more. All compensation due the county auditor, not chargeable to or received from other sources, is to be paid to him by the county. (See 1st Sess. Laws, p. 180, sec. 2161, subd. 10; Const., art. 18, see. 7; Hillard v. Shoshone Co., ante, p. 103, 27 Pac. 678 .) All taxes levied and collected for state purposes must be paid into the state treasury, without any deduction for commissions or ot’ charges. (Const., art. 7, sec. 7.) This section of the constitution is self-acting, and goes into effect without any legislation. The demurrer is sustained, and the petition dismissed, with costs awarded to respondent.

Sullivan, C. J., and Huston, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11894: 11908: 11916: 11920: 11936: 11937: 11953: 11965: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wickersham v. County Commissioners36 P. 700 (Idaho 1894)
  2. State v. Village of Garden City265 P.2d 328 (Idaho 1953)
  3. Toncray v. Budge95 P. 26 (Idaho 1908)
  4. State ex rel. Williams v. Adams409 P.2d 415 (Idaho 1965)
  5. Guheen v. Curtis31 P. 805 (Idaho 1892)
  6. Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle De Los Angeles v. Flint187 P. 428 (Cal. 1920)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Williams v. Adams409 P.2d 415 (Idaho 1965)
  2. State v. Village of Garden City265 P.2d 328 (Idaho 1953)
  3. Smith v. City of Nampa68 P.2d 344 (Idaho 1937)
  4. Moberly v. Leonard99 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1936)
  5. Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance Mutuelle De Los Angeles v. Flint187 P. 428 (Cal. 1920)
  6. Bone v. Trafton159 P. 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hillard v. Shoshone Cnty., 27 P. 678 (Idaho 1891) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list