State ex rel. Donnelly v. Hobe

82 N.W. 336, 106 Wis. 411, 1900 Wisc. LEXIS 66
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided April 6, 1900·Published·Cited by 25 cases

Opinion

Marshall, J.

The theory of appellant is that, all money collected by the county treasurer on the special assessments was collected for his use by express provision of the city [414] charter and is his private property; while the theory of respondent is that such assessments, when returned delinquent, became the property of the county the same as other delinquent taxes; that as soon as they were credited to the city of Superior by the county treasurer, pursuant to the general laws of the state regulating the manner of dealing with delinquent taxes, the city, in contemplation of law, had collected them and was liable to the relator for the amount of his certificates, and his recourse for payment thereof was solely to the fund thus accumulated in the hands of the city-treasurer. The trial court adopted the latter theory. Which of the two theories is right is by no means free from difficulty. The question must be solved by a careful examination and comparison of the provisions of the charter of the city of Superior covering the subject.

Sec. 21 of the charter (ch. 124, Laws of 1891) provides the basis for the action of the city clerk in placing special assessments for street improvements in the city tax roll, in the following language: “ He [the city comptroller] shall make and deliver to the city clerk a list of all certificates for the payment of which special taxes are to be levied in each year, in time for the same to be- inserted in the tax roll, in the form of a schedule of special taxes.” At this point it will be noted that special assessments are spoken of as taxes. In subch. XII, which treats of assessment and collection of taxes, special assessments are uniformly spoken of as distinct from taxes. Sec. 102 in such subchapter provides that the city clerk shall place before the common council, each year, certain information for their consideration in determining the amount of taxes to be raised for such year, but such requirement does not include anything relating to special assessments. The scheme of the charter is that no action of the common council shall be required as to the placing of such assessments in the tax roll. They are thus placed from information furnished directly to the-[415] city clerk by tbe comptroller. Sec. 102 further provides that, upon receiving the information required to be placed before the common council in the manner therein indicated, it shall, by resolution, levy such sums of money as may be sufficient for the several purposes for which tases are authorized. The next section provides that the clerk, upon a uniform percentage, shall extend upon the tax roll, in the manner therein indicated, the taxes levied by the common council, and shall also enter and extend upon the tax roll all special assessments and school taxes required to be entered thereon. Sec. 106 provides that, “All special assessments shall T>e carried out on the tax roll in a separate colum/n or columns opposite the lots or tracts upon which the same may be a lien, and the city treasurer shall have the same authority with reference thereto as if the amount of such lien was a general tax.” That indicates that the scheme of the charter is that special assessments shall constitute specific liens on specific property for the benefit of the owners of such liens; that such assessments are to be extended upon the tax roll for collection solely for the benefit of such owners; and that they are to be considered separate and distinct from taxes, strictly so called, meaning all burdens on property generally whether imposed for a general or a particular purpose.

The language of sec. 106, that the city treasurer shall have the same authority as to special assessments as in case of general taxes, does not indicate that such assessments are treated at that point as special taxes, strictly so called. The term “general tax” is used with reference to the-manner of imposing the tax upon property, in that it is levied thereon generally, by a uniform percentage, according to the value thereof. Taxes are spoken of as special if levied for a special purpose, and general if levied for some of the ordinary purposes of municipal government; but whether taxes be levied for a general or special purpose, if placed upon prop[416] erty as a whole in proportion to the value thereof, they are in a proper sense general taxes, as distinguished from special assessments made for street improvements.

Up to this point it is quite clear that the charter indications are that money collected on account of special assessments belongs to the owners of the certificates; that the municipal machinery is put in motion for the collection thereof solely for the benefit of the owners of the assessment liens, and that the municipality, at no point, can obtain any ownership of such liens or the money received in process of enforcing them. Every step in the proceedings to enforce such liens is required to be taken by municipal officers pursuant to a municipal agency for the owner of the certificates, created by law.

It has been repeatedly held by this court that the sole duty of a city, under charter provisions for the payment for street improvements by special assessments upon the property benefited, is to use the proper machinery for the collection of the assessments in the manner indicated by the charter; that the expense of the assessments cannot be made a general city liability in any way. Finney v. Oshkosh, 18 Wis. 210; Fletcher v. Oshkosh, 18 Wis. 229; Whalen v. La Crosse, 16 Wis. 271; Hall v. Chippewa Falls, 47 Wis. 267; Heller v. Milwaukee, 96 Wis. 134.

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

State ex rel. Donnelly v. Hobe, 82 N.W. 336, 106 Wis. 411, 1900 Wisc. LEXIS 66 (Wis. 1900).

82 N.W. 336 (State ex rel. Donnelly v. Hobe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Village of Dazey v. Barnes County
298 N.W. 13 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1941)
Gross v. Sommers
271 N.W. 11 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1937)
In re the State
245 N.W. 844 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1932)
Town of Bell v. Bayfield County
239 N.W. 503 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1931)
Campion v. Village of Graceville
232 N.W. 917 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)
City of Newberg v. Warren Construction Co.
279 P. 644 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Dennis v. City of McMinnville
269 P. 221 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925
239 P. 38 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Hadsell
196 Cal. 725 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
State v. Washburn Waterworks Co.
196 N.W. 537 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1923)
Miller v. School District No. 1
211 P. 174 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
In re Moody
132 N.E. 668 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
State ex rel. Portage County Drainage District v. Newby
171 N.W. 953 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1919)
Town of Polk v. Railroad Commission
143 N.W. 191 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Jackson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
178 F. 432 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Hayden v. Douglas County
170 F. 24 (Seventh Circuit, 1909)
Jones v. Broadway Roller Rink Co.
118 N.W. 170 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1908)
Brockenbrough v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance
145 N.C. 354 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Olmsted v. City of Superior
155 F. 172 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin, 1907)