40 P.2d 363 | Kan. | 1935
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an action in which the county commissioners of Sedgwick county ask a writ of mandamus to compel the county treasurer to disburse certain tax money that was paid under protest and to compel defendant railroads to withdraw their protests. Judgment was for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.
The taxes involved are those payable in December, 1933. The action arises on account of a dispute about which tax limitation statute controls. The levy which is attacked here was 4.5 mills in the aggregate. Defendant railway companies paid such of their taxes as they deemed illegal under protest. The county treasurer is holding such amount, awaiting the outcome of this action.
Chapter 309 of the Laws of 1933 is what is generally known as the “levy limitation” statute. It provided a comprehensive plan for limiting the amount that could be levied in the counties in Kansas. It divided the counties into seven classes according to assessed valuation. It limited the aggregate levy of a county the size of Sedgwick to 3.5 mills and limited the levy for the poor fund to one mill. Provision was made in the statute for the board of county commissioners to secure permission from the state tax commission to make an additional levy of one mill for poor relief. This act was approved March 25, 1933, and became effective on publication April 3, 1933. That levy was made under the authority of the above statute. Chapter 309, however, was not the only act passed by the legislature of 1933 that dealt with tax levies. Chapter 198 deals with that subject as applied to Sedgwick county alone. It provides for a levy of one mill for the poor fund and provides that such a levy shall be in addition to the one provided for by R. S. 1931 Supp. 39-340. That section was an act increasing the poor levy to one-half mill. Chapter 198 further provided that in any county affected by the act if the poor fund should become exhausted before the additional levies authorized in the act were made the county commissioners were empowered to issue warrants in the amounts necessary to care for the poor, unemployed and unfortunate in an amount not greater than could be raised by the additional levy.
“It is true that repeals by implication are not favored, but this rule has no application where the later statute is obviously intended to cover the entire subject matter of the prior act, and its provisions are manifestly intended as a substitute therefor. (Citing many cases.)” (p.331.)
We are unable to say that it is obvious that chapter 309 was intended to so cover the subject matter of chapter 198 as to be manifestly intended as a substitute therefor. The provision in chapter 198 giving the county commissioners authority to issue warrants if the fund for the support of the poor should become exhausted before the levies provided for are made is enough to take the chapter out of the above rule. This view is strengthened by the fact that chap
It will be remembered that there were about ten days after chapter 198 became effective before chapter 309 became effective. This was ample time for warrants to have been issued. While the pleading does not state that the warrants held were issued during this period of time, still the fact that they could have done so makes it obvious that the legislature intended to make such a happening possible. At any rate a sufficient period of time had elapsed between the taking effect of chapter 198 and chapter 309 that it cannot be said that circumstances were such that chapter 309 could ever be a substitute for chapter 198. Plaintiffs meet this argument by urging that counties had the right to issue no-fund warrants without the authority of chapter 198 until the passage of the cash-basis law, which is chapter 319 of the Laws of 1933. The answer to that is two-fold — the authority to make the additional levy and the authority to issue no-fund warrants go hand in hand in chapter 198. It would do no good to have authority to issue the warrants unless there was also authority to make the additional levy, since everyone could see that there would be as much demanded of the poor fund in the year that was coming as in the year just passed. The other answer is that the cash-basis law was being considered during most of the time that the legislature was in session. The members of both houses were familiar with its provisions. The general purpose for which it was being considered was to forbid cities, counties and school districts issuing no-fund warrants. Probably no bill that was enacted received such general consideration. No doubt the legislature foresaw this and conferred on the county commissioners the authority to issue warrants under the circumstances covered by chapter 198.
It is not always held that the later act of a legislature repeals another by implication. In the case of State, ex rel., v. McCombs, 125 Kan. 92, 262 Pac. 579, this court said:
*184 “ ‘Laws enacted by the same legislature about the same time and concerning the same subject matter, being in pan materia, are to be taken and considered together in order to determine the legislative purpose and arrive at the true result.’ (In re Hall, Petitioner, 38 Kan. 670, syl. 1, 17 Pac. 649. See, also, Hibbard v. Barker, 84 Kan. 848, 115 Pac. 561; State, ex rel., v. City of Lawrence, 98 Kan. 808, 160 Pac. 217; Shortall v. Huppe, 99 Kan. 639, 162 Pac. 319.)” (p. 95.)
Plaintiffs urge in addition that the protests filed by defendant railway companies were insufficient under the statutes. The statute is R. S. 1933 Supp. 79-2005. It is as follows:
“Any person, association, partnership or corporation, before protesting the payment of his taxes, shall be required, at the time of paying said taxes, to make and file a written statement with the county treasurer clearly stating the grounds on which the whole or any part of said taxes are protested, and shall further cite any law, statute, or facts on which such taxpayer relies in protesting the whole or any part of such taxes, and shall further state the exact portion of said tax which is being protested: Provided, That the county treasurer is authorized to disburse to the proper county funds all portions of such taxes not protested.”
It will be noted that the statute requires that the protest should state clearly the grounds upon which the taxpayer relies. The protests filed in this case simply stated that the aggregate limit which Sedgwick county could levy was 3.5 mills and that the county had actually levied an aggregate of 4.5 mills. As a matter of fact, what the taxpayers were relying on was the claim that chapter 198 had been repealed by chapter 309 by implication. Such a statement was necessary in order for the protest to be a clear statement of what statute the taxpayer relied on. We have concluded that the protests were insufficient.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
