Opinion · Montana Court Opinions

PETERSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF MISSOULA, 135 Mont. 96 (1959)

PAUL E. PETERSON & HELEN PETERSON, STANLEY G. DALSTROM & FERN E.DALSTROM, IRA M. HEAD & BEATRICE A. HEAD; EVERETT L. YOUNG & JUNE H.YOUNG, PAUL E. PRETY & BERNICE C. PRETY, ISABELLA A. STANTON, FRANK C.BLAND & FREIDA BLAND, JAMES A. CURRAN & JOSEPHINE L. CURRAN, EMIL W.ZIESEMER & ANN C. ZIESEMER, OTTO B. PRYEAR & BERNICE B. PRYEAR, LLOYD E.HILL & BETTY v. HILL, VERNON KROGSTAD & FAYE KROGSTAD, LUD

Type
Opinion
Court
Montana Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Montana
Date
1959-04-02
Topic
general

PETERSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF MISSOULA, 135 Mont. 96 (1959) 337 P.2d 367 PAUL E. PETERSON AND HELEN PETERSON, STANLEY G. DALSTROM AND FERN E.DALSTROM, IRA M. HEAD AND BEATRICE A.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PETERSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF MISSOULA, 135 Mont. 96 (1959). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PETERSON, ET AL. v. CITY OF MISSOULA,135 Mont. 96(1959)
337 P.2d 367
PAUL E. PETERSON AND HELEN PETERSON, STANLEY G. DALSTROM AND FERN E.
DALSTROM, IRA M. HEAD AND BEATRICE A. HEAD; EVERETT L. YOUNG AND JUNE H.
YOUNG, PAUL E. PRETY AND BERNICE C. PRETY, ISABELLA A. STANTON, FRANK C.
BLAND AND FREIDA BLAND, JAMES A. CURRAN AND JOSEPHINE L. CURRAN, EMIL W.
ZIESEMER AND ANN C. ZIESEMER, OTTO B. PRYEAR AND BERNICE B. PRYEAR, LLOYD E.
HILL AND BETTY V. HILL, VERNON KROGSTAD AND FAYE KROGSTAD, LUDVIK ROSICH AND
GLADYS E. ROSICH, BLANCHE E. COTE AND MATHIAS J. COTE, A.B. CHATMAN AND EDNA
CHATMAN, F.C. BERGMAN AND ALLIE M. BERGMAN, LELAND E. YARBROUGH AND HELEN M.
YARBROUGH, ALFRED CIPOLATO, ALFRED L. NELSON, BERNARD BOEDIGHEIMER AND CELIA
BOEDIGHEIMER, MRS. KATHERINE V. BAKKEE, LUELLA A. DURALL, AGNES H. ULRICH,
JOHN A. METZGER, AND ANNA T. METZGER, HOWARD P. BYLER, PLAINTIFFS AND
RESPONDENTS,v.CITY OF MISSOULA, WILLIAM M. STERLING, FINANCE DIRECTOR
(TREASURER), CITY OF MISSOULA, WALTON R.L. TAYLOR, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF
MISSOULA, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
No. 9779.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted January 23, 1959.
Decided April 2, 1959.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS —TAXATION.Page 971. Municipal Corporations — Recovery of taxes paid underprotest.Where work done by city on city streets was a paving or resurfacing job, but assessments of special improvement taxes were made under statutes providing for creation of a special improvement sprinkling district for purpose of sprinkling as a dust palliative, assessments were void, and landowners were entitled to recover taxes paid under protest.
Appeal from the District Court of Missoula County; AlbertBesancon, Judge.
Jeremy G. Thane, Missoula, for appellant.

Erwin L. Anzjon, Missoula, for respondent.
THE HONORABLE C.B. ELWELL, District Judge, sitting in place of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON:
The above-entitled case is a companion case to Cyr v. City of Missoula, Mont.,337 P.2d 365, decided this day, and it was submitted to the district court and to the supreme court in the same manner as the other case. The only difference in the two cases is that the plaintiffs and respondents in this case paid the tax under protest and then filed their action for the return of the tax and to have it declared void.

For the same reasons stated in the case of Cyr v. City of Missoula, decided this day, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICES BOTTOMLY, ADAIR, ANGSTMAN and CASTLES, concur.Page 98