51 Iowa 486 | Iowa | 1879
The answer of defendant shows the collection of the taxes, or part thereof, which is in his hands. But, as a reason why he should not be required to pay the same over to the plaintiff, it is shown in the answer that defendant collected a tax, voted by the township of Lee, in Polk county, to aid the construction of plaintiff’s railroad, and paid a large part thereof to plaintiff; but that, in a certain suit brought by citizens of Lee township, it was afterward determined that the tax of Lee township was illegal, and defendant was enjoined from making further collection thereof. Thereupon the supervisors of the county, by resolution, directed the defendant not to pay plaintiff thé taxes collected in Madison township, but to hold the same to answer for any claim made against the. county for the repayment of the illegal taxes of Lee township.
The cause was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts.
“It is hereby stipulated that this cause may be submitted upon the pleadings, and following statement of facts:
“1. An election of the voters of Madison township, Polk county, Iowa, was held on the 6th day of October, A. D. 1870, to vote upon the question of voting a tax of thirty mills on the dollar to aid in the construction of the line of railroad mentioned in the petition.
“3. The trustees of the township certified compliance upon the part of the company with the statutes, etc., and that said company was entitled to the payment of the tax so voted.
“4. The name of the railroad company has been changed, as stated in said petition.
“5. The right of said company to the tax has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the State, and it is admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to the moneys paid in by tar payers in Madison and Crocker townships, and which have not been paid out under an agreement between the parties, unless the treasurer is entitled to hold them Under the facts stated in said answer and admitted as follows:
“1. That the treasurer of said county collected upon taxes placed upon the tax duplicates of Lee township the sum of eleven thousand five hundred and thirty-five dollars and nine cents, and paid the same over to plaintiff upon its claim that the same had been legally assessed in aid of the construction of said road.
“2. That the Supreme Court has decided that said tax was not legally assessed, and it is admitted for the purpose of this case that there was not a majority of votes cast for such taxation, and that said assessment under which said sums were collected and paid was void and of no effect.
“3. It is admitted that the sum of-of said sum of eleven thousand five hundred and thirty-nine dollars and nine cents of the taxes collected upon the property in said Lee toymship was collected by the sale of real estate. The sum of $-thereof was paid under special protest by the parties paying the same, at the time of payment, and the sum of $- was paid without anything being said by way of protest, before or at the time of payment, by the parties paying the same. To save time and expense in the trial hereof it is agreed that if, by the decision of the court
“4. It is admitted that the treasurer has collected the •several sums, and that he has disposed of and holds the same as set out in the answer of defendant herein.
“5. It is admitted that the board of supervisors passed the resolution as stated and set out in said answer.
“6. That said board of supervisors ordered the county auditor of said county to draw orders or warrants as in said ■•answer stated.
“It is admitted that the funds in the hands of the treasurer from the taxes of said Madison and Crocker townships is not sufficient to refund the taxes collected by him upon said illegal assessment in said Lee township, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the order asked in its petition if, upon ■the pleadings and admitted facts, the treasurer has a right to hold said taxes so collected by him upon the assessment in Madison and Crocker townships, to refund the illegal taxes •collected by him upon the property in Lee township, and paid to plaintiff.”
The tax in question was voted under chapter 102, Acts Thirteenth General Assembly, to aid in the construction of plaintiff’s railroad. The county received the taxes not as revenue for any governmental purpose, but as á trust fund to be paid to plaintiff. The tax was voted on the condition that it be applied to the purpose, and no other, of building the railroad. The tax payers and the railroad company are both beneficiaries of the trust, and have rights which the courts will not permit the county or county officers to disregard. The voters have the right to require the taxes to be applied to the purpose of building the railroad.
It may be conceded, for our present purpose, that a tax of this kind, when declared illegal, must be refunded to the tax payers under Code, § 870. But it is very clear that .such illegal tax cannot be refunded out of county revenue.
Beversed.