MacOn County v. Huidekoper

Supreme Court

MacOn County v. Huidekoper

134 U.S. 332, 10 S. Ct. 491, 33 L. Ed. 914, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1973

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 17, 1890

Docket615

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 134 U.S. 332 (MacOn County v. Huidekoper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacOn County v. Huidekoper, 134 U.S. 332, 10 S. Ct. 491, 33 L. Ed. 914, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1973 (1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justioe Field,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

' According to the law of Missouri under which the bonds Of Macon County were issued to the. Missouri and Mississippi. EailrOad Company, in payment of its subscription of stock to that company^ as stated above, the balance due upon the judgment of the relator, after application of the moneys raised by the spécial tax of one-twentieth of one per cent upon the assessed value of taxable property, stood on the same footing as any other liability of the county to be paid out of its general funds. To raise revenue to meet its expenses, which included that liability, the county was authorized to levy a tax of fifty cents on every one hundred-dollars of valuation of taxable .property in the county. United States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211 Knox County Court v. United States, 109 U. S. 229.

■' . In this case it appears that for the year 1885 the county had levied only thirty cents on every one hundred dollars of property, but it set .up in. its answer that it had levied fifty cents, treating 'the twenty cents which had been levied by the boards of townships for township and bridge purposes as part of the *337 fifty cents. The township is a separate organization from that of the county, with authority to purchase and hold real estate and make contracts and control its corporate property, and its taxes levied for those purposes over which it has control can in no just sense be termed taxes for county purposes. There can be, therefore, no valid objection to the county’s levy of an additional twenty cents on the one hundred dollars to make up the fifty cents which it is authorized to levy to meet its expenses and liabilities. ■

The apportioning of the funds collected to distinct and separate purposes does not affect the question presented. „The proceeding is to obtain a further levy and the appropriation' of its proceeds upon the judgment of the relator among other-, .debts of the county.

That the surplus remaining in the treasury over the 'payment of the warrant for the school fund, which is of prior-registration, ■ should be appropriated, pro. rata-, upon all the warrant's of even daté and registration, is a simple measure o.f justice: All the warrants were issued and registered on' the same, day, and if they could only be paid in the order of their .registration, and a payment could.not be made.on any one without its surrender, as contended, the treasurer. wqúld be obliged to retain the funds in his possession until he had 'a1 sufficient amount to pay them all before -applying any. portion thereof. As the Circuit Court said, this is an absurd position; and it held that whenever any reasonable amount has acor mulated it should be distributed^ and added that the order of the court would be .a full protection to the officer. In that respect as well as in other particulars, concurring with the. court, we affirm its judgment. ■

Affirmed:

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

Me. Justioe Field,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

' According to the law of Missouri under which the bonds Of Macon County were issued to the. Missouri and Mississippi. EailrOad Company, in payment of its subscription of stock to that company^ as stated above, the balance due upon the judgment of the relator, after application of the moneys raised by the spécial tax of one-twentieth of one per cent upon the assessed value of taxable property, stood on the same footing as any other liability of the county to be paid out of its general funds. To raise revenue to meet its expenses, which included that liability, the county was authorized to levy a tax of fifty cents on every one hundred-dollars of valuation of taxable .property in the county. United States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211 Knox County Court v. United States, 109 U. S. 229.

■' . In this case it appears that for the year 1885 the county had levied only thirty cents on every one hundred dollars of property, but it set .up in. its answer that it had levied fifty cents, treating 'the twenty cents which had been levied by the boards of townships for township and bridge purposes as part of the *337 fifty cents. The township is a separate organization from that of the county, with authority to purchase and hold real estate and make contracts and control its corporate property, and its taxes levied for those purposes over which it has control can in no just sense be termed taxes for county purposes. There can be, therefore, no valid objection to the county’s levy of an additional twenty cents on the one hundred dollars to make up the fifty cents which it is authorized to levy to meet its expenses and liabilities. ■

The apportioning of the funds collected to distinct and separate purposes does not affect the question presented. „The proceeding is to obtain a further levy and the appropriation' of its proceeds upon the judgment of the relator among other-, .debts of the county.

That the surplus remaining in the treasury over the 'payment of the warrant for the school fund, which is of prior-registration, ■ should be appropriated, pro. rata-, upon all the warrant's of even daté and registration, is a simple measure o.f justice: All the warrants were issued and registered on' the same, day, and if they could only be paid in the order of their .registration, and a payment could.not be made.on any one without its surrender, as contended, the treasurer. wqúld be obliged to retain the funds in his possession until he had 'a1 sufficient amount to pay them all before -applying any. portion thereof. As the Circuit Court said, this is an absurd position; and it held that whenever any reasonable amount has acor mulated it should be distributed^ and added that the order of the court would be .a full protection to the officer. In that respect as well as in other particulars, concurring with the. court, we affirm its judgment. ■

Affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 U.S. 332, 10 S. Ct. 491, 33 L. Ed. 914, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-county-v-huidekoper-scotus-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack