State ex rel. Board of School Trustees v. Board of County Commissioners

17 Nev. 96
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1882
DocketNo. 1123
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 Nev. 96 (State ex rel. Board of School Trustees v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Board of School Trustees v. Board of County Commissioners, 17 Nev. 96 (Neb. 1882).

Opinion

By tbe Court,

Leonard, (X J.;

This is an application for a writ of' mandate to oompel tbeboard of county commissioners of Storey county to transfer the sum of eighteen thousand six hundred and seven dollars- and forty-three cents from the ‘ ‘ railroad interest and sinking: [99]*99•fund” to the school fund of said county. The facts are as follows: In 1869 the legislature passed “An act to authorize the commissioners of Storey county to issue to the Virginia ■and Truckee Railroad Company bonds to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars, and to provide for the payment of •the same.” By that statute it was made the duty of the board of county commissioners to levy and collect, annually, nntil all the bonds issued under the provisions thereof should be fully paid, a tax of one-half of one per cent, on all the taxable property of Storey county, to be applied exclusively ■to an interest and sinking fund for the payment of 'the bonds •and coupons, to be issued as therein provided. The statute .also provided that the said tax should be levied, assessed and -collected in the same manner and by the same officers as other -county taxes; also, that 'the proceeds of said tax should be placed by the county treasurer in a separate fund, to be known .as the “railroad interest and sinking fund,” and should be .■applied, first, to the payment of the interest on said bonds, ■as the same should become due; and, second, to the redemption of said bonds as therein prescribed.

The bonds of the county, to the amount of three hundred thousand -dollars, were issued, payable to the Virginia and Truckee Railroad Company, as required by law. On the third day of April, 1876, before said bonds and the interest thereon had been fully paid, the board of county -commissioners of Storey county, in pursuance of law, levied an ad valorem tax of fifty cents on each one hundred -dollars value of all the taxable property within said county, including the proceeds of mines and mining claims, and directed the same to be collected and paid, for the purpose of creating an interest and sinking fund for the payment of the bonds and coupons issued in pursuance of the statute of 1869, above mentioned, for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1876, and ending December 81, 1876. The board also ordered that this tax be applied exclusively to the payment of said coupons, and to the creating of a sinking fund for the payment of said bonds. Under an assessment of the proceeds of the Consolidated Virginia and California Mining Companies’ mines, for the fiscal year 1876, there became due to the “railroad interest and [100]*100sinking ’fund ” the sum of seventy-four thousand four hundred and twenty-nine dollars and seventy cents.

This entire tax became delinquent, and by reason thereof, a penalty of twenty-five per cent, thereon, to-wit, eighteen thousand six hundred and seven dollars and fifty-two cents, was added by law to the original tax.

Suits were thereafter commenced for the collection of all taxes and penalties due from said companies, including the amount due to the railroad interest and sinking fund for said fiscal year.

Thereafter, in May, 1877, said companies paid into the eounty treasury the entire original taxes due from them, including the amount du£ to the railroad interest and sinking-fund, but did not pay the penalties imposed by law by reason of non-payment at the time required. At a subsequent date (March, 1882) , and after the railroad bonds and coupons had been fully paid, all the penalties due from said companies were paid.

Of this amount, thirty-nine thousand seventy-five dollars arid sixty-one cents belonged to Storey county, and eighteen thousand six hundred and seven dollars and fifty-two cents thereof accrued on account of non-payment of the sum due to the railroad interest and sinking fund.

On the fourth day of May, 1882, the county treasurer-apportioned the moneys belonging to Storey county, and transferred to and de]oosited in the railroad interest and sinking fund the sum of eighteen thousand six hundred and seven dollars and fifty-two cents, where it now remains.

On the part of relator it is claimed that this money should be transferred to the school fund, and that it is the duty of respondent to make the transfer; while the latter denies that such is its duty, but is of the opinion that this money of right belongs to the general fund of the county. The claim of relator is based upon a statute which is as follows : ‘ ‘ The county commissioners of Storey county are hereby authorized and directed to transfer the surplus money, if any, remaining in the railroad interest and sinking- fund of said county to the school fund of said county; also, said county commissioners of Storey county are hereby further authorized and directed to [101]*101transfer the surplus money, if any, remaining in the court-house bond fund to the general fund of said county.”

This statute is entitled “An act to authorize the county «commissioners of Storey county to transfer certain funds,” -and it was approved February 14, 1879. The last bond was paid on or before March 13, 1878, at which time there remained as a surplus, in the railroad interest and sinking fund, nearly eighteen thousand dollars. On the last-named •day, the board of county commissioners, without authority of law, transfer-red from the railroad interest and sinking fund to the school fund the surplus then actually in the former fund; and, subsequently, the statute of February 14, 1879, was passed, as claimed by respondents, for the purpose of legalizing this transfer, and not for the purpose, or with the intention, of making it the duty of said board to transfer any moneys which might thereafter come into the railroad fund.

In this connection it must be remembered that the money in question was legally due at the time the statute of 1879 was passed; that the tax of fifty cents upon each one hundred •dollars of taxable .property in the county was levied for the benefit of the railroad interest and sinking fund alone; and that, under the statute of 1869, it was the duty of the county treasurer to place the proceeds of this tax in the railroad fund, notwithstanding there was no indebtedness existing against that fund.

Respondent justifies its refusal to transfer the money in ■question to the school fund on the ground: 1. That the statute of February 14, 1879, is contrary to the provisions of section 17, article IV., of the constitution of this state, which provides that “ each law enacted by the legislature shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title,”

The subject of the statute in question is the transfer of surplus moneys from one fund to another' — from the railroad interest and sinking fund to the school fund, and from the court-house bond fund to the general fund. It cannot be claimed that it embraces more than one subject, simply because it authorizes and directs the transfer of moneys from two different funds. ■

[102]*102“ An act concerning crimes and punishments ” is not unconstitutional, for the reason that it treats of different crimes. (State v. Davis, 14 Nev. 443.)

In that case we said : ‘ ‘ Escape, larceny, robbery and murder are different crimes, but they are upon the same subject, viz.: crimes.”

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

Related

State ex rel. Sparks v. State Bank & Trust Co.
31 Nev. 456 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
State v. Board of County Commissioners
41 P. 145 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Nev. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-board-of-school-trustees-v-board-of-county-commissioners-nev-1882.