Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 Colo. 525

Interstate Trust Co. v. Smith

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 15, 1919

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1919-04-15

<p>Irrigation District — Taxes—Payment Refused — Dtity of Treasurer. The County Treasurer is not at liberty to refuse to accept the state, county and school tax, assessed against lands in an irrigation district, merely because the land owner refuses or neglects to pay the tax levied for the expenses of the district.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, the Interstate Trust Company, brought this action to rest rain defendant, as county treasurer of Montezuma county, from accepting and giving receipts for the general county, state and school taxes levied against lands in the Montezuma Valley irrigation district, without at the same time requiring the payment of the Montezuma Valley irrigation district taxes. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained. Plaintiff elected to stand upon its complaint, and a judgment of dismissal followed. Plaintiff brings the cause here for review. “The case of Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist., et al. (decided by this court at this term) 181 Pac. 123 , determines that irrigation district assessments are special taxes levied lor local improvements only. A refusal, therefore, of the county treasurer lo accept general state, county, and school taxes unless and until the taxpayer had also paid his irrigation district assessments, in our opinion finds no support either in reason or law, statutory or otherwise. The judgment of the trial court is right, and should be affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Moore v. Gas Securities Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1941

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

201919192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Bailey

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, The Interstate Trust Company, brought this action to restrain defendant, as county treasurer of Montezuma County, from accepting and giving receipts for the general county, state and school taxes levied against lands in The Montezuma Valley Irrigation District, without at the same time requiring the payment *526of The Montezuma Valley Irrigation District taxes. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained. Plaintiff elected to stand upon its complaint and a judgment of dismissal followed. Plaintiff brings the cause here for review.

¶3The case of Interstate Trust Company v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist., et al., decided by this court at this term, determines that irrigation district assessments are special taxes levied for local improvements only. A refusal, therefore, of the County Treasurer to accept general state, county and school taxes unless and until the taxpayer had also paid his irrigation district assessments in our opinion finds no support either in reason or law, statutory or otherwise. The judgment of the trial court is right and should be affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Decision en bane.

/66/colo/525 · .json · Public domain