George Shiras, Jr.

Name: Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court
Author: George Shiras, Jr.

Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by George Shiras, Jr.. It explores elements such as tax, assessment and jurisdiction.

Quotes from Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court (George Shiras, Jr.)

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ It cannot be denied that bills in equity to restrain the collection of taxes illegally imposed have frequently been sustained. But it is well settled that there ought to be some equitable ground for relief besides the mere illegality of the tax; for it must be presumed that the law furnishes a remedy for illegal taxation. It often happens, however, that the case is such that the person illegally taxed would suffer irremedial damage, or be subjected to vexatious litigation, if he were compelled to resort to his legal remedy alone. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ It is doubtless true that it has been held by this and other courts that if the alleged tax has no semblance of legality, and if, upon the face of the proceedings, it is wholly unwarranted by law, or for any reason totally void, as disclosed by a mere inspection of the record, such a tax would not constitute a cloud, and that the jurisdiction which is exercised by courts of equity to relieve parties by removing clouds upon their titles would not attach. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ What is complained of is no mere irregularity or error in the assessment. As we have seen, there was an entire want of jurisdiction in the common council to proceed for want of the assent of the requisite proportion of property owners, and the assessment and tax were therefore void. That there was no plain and adequate remedy by certiorari would seem to be evident. Upon that writ nothing could have been shown by evidence of facts outside of the record. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ As respects this contention, we agree with the supreme court of the territory that this statute applies to cases where there are only errors, irregularities, overvaluations, or other defects which are not jurisdictional, but that where the council, not having the jurisdiction to levy the tax, could not proceed under the statute, the taxpayers need not proceed under the statute to recover the money paid. Where the tax was wholly void and illegal, as in this case, the statute and its remedies for errors and irregularities have no application. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ The fact of consent by the requisite number, in this case, to be manifested by failure to object, is jurisdictional, and in the nature of a condition precedent to the exercise of the power.
'Where the power to pave or improve depends upon the assent or petition of a given number or proportion of the proprietors to be affected, this fact is jurisdictional, and the finding of the city authorities or council that the requisite number had assented or petitioned is not, in the absence of legislative provision to that effect, conclusive. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ It was held that while the complainants were permitted, for convenience and to save expense, to unite in a petition setting forth the grievances of which complaint was made, the object was to relieve each separate owner from the amount for which he personally or his property was found to be accountable, and that such distinct and separate interests could not be united for the purpose of making up the amount necessary to give this court jurisdiction on appeal. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court

“ The bill alleged, the answer admitted, and the trial court found, that the notice of intention to pave in district No. 2, and to defray the expenses thereof by levying a local tax on abutting property owners, was published on March 9, 1892, and in which it was stated that the city council would on March 29, 1892, at 10 o'clock a. m., hear objections in writing from any and all persons interested in said local assessment. ”

George Shiras, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from Ogden City v. Armstrong — Opinion of the Court (George Shiras, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature