John Deere Co. v. Phillips County

Supreme Court of Colorado

John Deere Co. v. Phillips County

48 P.2d 793, 97 Colo. 196

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMay 6, 1935

DocketNo. 13,400.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 P.2d 793 (John Deere Co. v. Phillips County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Deere Co. v. Phillips County, 48 P.2d 793, 97 Colo. 196 (Colo. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

An action to recover taxes paid under protest. Judgment of dismissal entered and the taxpayer assigns error.

The proceeding was against "The County of Phillips, State of Colorado." An action so brought is not maintainable. "In all suits or proceedings, by or against a county, the name in which the county shall sue or be sued shall be, the board of county commissioners of the county of............" C.L. 1921, § 8662. Even had the taxpayer been successful below its judgment would have been unavailing. Board of County Commissioners v.Churning, 4 Colo. App. 321, 35 Pac. 918. "We have but one statutory provision concerning the manner in which a suit shall be brought against a county. It must be brought against the board of county commissioners of the county sued. That is the corporate name of the county for the purposes of the suit, and there is no authority to sue it by any other name. In this case the statutory requirement having been disregarded, the judgment is a nullity." Id. See, also, Board of Com'rsSweetwater County v. Young, 3 Wyo. 684, 29 Pac. 1002;County of Rock Island v. Steele, 31 Ill. 543; 15 C. J. 665, § 379; 7 R.C.L. 966, § 40.

Let the order be that the judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BUTLER and MR. JUSTICE BOUCK dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

An action to recover taxes paid under protest. Judgment of dismissal entered and the taxpayer assigns error.

The proceeding was against "The County of Phillips, State of Colorado." An action so brought is not maintainable. "In all suits or proceedings, by or against a county, the name in which the county shall sue or be sued shall be, the board of county commissioners of the county of............" C.L. 1921, § 8662. Even had the taxpayer been successful below its judgment would have been unavailing. Board of County Commissioners v.Churning, 4 Colo. App. 321, 35 Pac. 918. "We have but one statutory provision concerning the manner in which a suit shall be brought against a county. It must be brought against the board of county commissioners of the county sued. That is the corporate name of the county for the purposes of the suit, and there is no authority to sue it by any other name. In this case the statutory requirement having been disregarded, the judgment is a nullity." Id. See, also, Board of Com'rsSweetwater County v. Young, 3 Wyo. 684, 29 Pac. 1002;County of Rock Island v. Steele, 31 Ill. 543; 15 C. J. 665, § 379; 7 R.C.L. 966, § 40.

Let the order be that the judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BUTLER and MR. JUSTICE BOUCK dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 P.2d 793, 97 Colo. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-deere-co-v-phillips-county-colo-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack