Fallbrook Irrigation Dist v. Bradley, 355
| Decision Date | 16 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 355,355 |
| Citation | 41 L.Ed. 369,164 U.S. 112,17 S.Ct. 56 |
| Parties | FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. et al. v. BRADLEY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 112-114 intentionally omitted] This is an appeal from the United States circuit court for the Southern district of California. The case is reported in 68 Fed. 948. The action was commenced in that court by defendants in error (the plaintiffs below) for the purpose of procuring an injunction restraining defendant Tomlins. the collector of the irrigation district, from giving a deed to it of the premises belonging to plaintiff Mrs. Bradley, based on a sale of her land made by the collector for the nonpayment of a certain assessment upon such lands under the act incorporating the irrigation district, and to set aside such assessment, and for other relief.
The following among other facts were set up in the plaintiffs' second amended bill in equity: The plaintiffs are aliens and subjects of Great Britain, residing in San Diego county, Cal. The irrigation district is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of California, and doing business at Fallbrook, San Diego county. Matthew Tomlins was the collector of the corporation at the time of the commencement of the suit, and it has been doing business as, and claims to be, a corporation, under 'An act providing for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes,' approved March 7, 1887, as such acts have been amended by the acts of 1889 and 1891.
[Statement of case from Page 115 intentionally omitted] The material sections of the act, as amended by the other acts just stated, are set forth in the margin herein.1
The legislature also passed two acts, approved February 16, 1889, called, respectively, the 'Inclusion' and the 'Exclusion' Act, by which means were provided, in the first-named act, for including lands within an irrigation district which had not been included in the petition when first presented to the board of supervisors; and, in the second-named act, for excluding from a district already formed some portion of the land which then formed part of such district. An examination of those acts does not become material in this case.
The plaintiff Mrs. Bradley is the owner of certain real estate described in complainants' bill, which is included within the lines of the irrigation district. The bill sets forth the various steps taken under the irrigation act for the purpose of forming the irrigation district, and it alleges the taking of all steps necessary therefor, including the election of officers as provided in the act; that the board of directors submitted to the electors the question whether a special assessment for $6,000 should be made for the purpose of defraying the expenses of organization, and that the electors approved of such assessment, and the proper proceedings were thereafter taken by which to assess the property owners; and that plaintiff Mrs. Bradley's assessment amounted to $51.31, which she refused to pay because the act was, as alleged, unconstitutional and void.
The bill further states that the collector then proceeded to enforce the collection by a sale of the land, and did sell it to the irrigation district, but that no deed has been given to the district by the collector; and an injunction is asked to restrain the execution and delivery of any deed by such collector, because of the alleged invalidity of the act under which the proceedings were taken.
The bill also alleged a proposed issue of bonds to the amount of $400,000, subject to the decision of the electors at an election proposed to be held under the provisions of the act.
Various reasons are set out in the bill, upon which are based the allegation of the invalidity of the act, among which it is stated that the law violates the federal constitution, in that it amounts to the taking of the plaintiff's property without due process of law. It is also stated that the act is in violation of the state constitution in many different particulars, which are therein set forth.
The bill also asks that the assessment may be set aside, and all the proceedings declared void, on the ground of the invalidity of the act itself.
The defendants demurred to the first bill of the complainants, and the demurrer was overruled. The complainants were granted leave to serve a second amended bill, to which the defendants put in an answer, denying many of the material allegations of the bill, and claiming the entire validity of the act.
The case came on for hearing before the circuit judge, by consent, upon the second amended bill of complainants, and defendants' answer thereto, and the court gave judgment against the defendants, because of the unconstitutionality of the irrigation act; it being, as held, in violation of the federal constitution, as the effect of such legislation by the state was to deprive complainants of their property without due process of law. The decision of the circuit judge was given for the reasons stated by him in his opinion rendered upon the argument of the demurrer to the bill of complainants, and some of the facts stated in the bill and admitted by the demurrer were denied in the answer subsequently served by the defendants. The sole ground of the decision was, however, the unconstitutionality of the act, as above stated. From the judgment entered upon the decision of the circuit judge the irrigation district appealed directly to this court, by virtue of the provisions of section 5 of chapter 517 of the Laws of 1891 (26 Stat. 826), which gave an appeal from the circuit court direct to the supreme court 'in any case that involves the construction or application of the constitution of the United States,' and also 'in any case in which the constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention to the constitution of the United States.'
A. L. Rhodes,
Benjamin Harrison, for appellants.
Geo. H. Maxwell, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 125-130 intentionally omitted]
Joseph H. Choate
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 131-151 intentionally omitted]
John F. Dillon
Mr. Justice PECKHAM, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision of this case involves the validity of the irrigation act enacted by the legislature of the state of California, and set forth in the above statement of facts. The principal
act, passed in 1887, has been amended once or twice by subsequent legislation, but in its main features it remains as first enacted. The title of the act indicates its purpose. It is admitted by all that very large tracts of land in California are in fact 'arid lands,' which require artificial irrigation in order to produce any thing of value. There are different degrees, however, in which irrigation is necessary, from a point where, without its use, the land is absolutely uncultivable, to that where, if not irrigated artificially, it may yet produce some return for the labor of the husbandman in the shape of a puny and unreliable crop, but nothing like what it could and would do if water were used upon it. There are, again, other lands which, if not irrigated, will still produce the ordinary cereal crops to a more or less uncertain extent, but which, if water be used artificially upon them at appropriate times, are thereby fitted to and will produce much more certain and larger crops without it, and will be also rendered capable of producing fruit and grapes of all kinds, of first-rate quality, and in very large quantities. What is termed the 'arid belt' is said, in the Census Bulletin No. 23, for the census of 1890, to extend from Colorado to the Pacific Ocean, and to include over 600,000,000 acres of land.
Of this enormous total, artificial irrigation has thus far been used only upon about three and a half million acres. Of which slightly over a million acres lie in the state of California. It was stated by counsel that something over 30 irrigation districts had been organized in California under the act in question, and that a total bonded indebtedness of more than $16,000,000 had been authorized by the various districts under the provisions of the act, and that more than $8,000,000 of the bonds had been sold, and the money used for the acquisition of property and water rights, and for the construction of works necessary for the irrigation of the lands contained in the various districts.
Whether these statements are perfectly accurate or not is a matter of no great importance, as it has been assumed by all that numbers of districts have been formed under the act, and a very large indebtedness already incurred, and that more
will be necessary before all the districts will be placed in an efficient working condition. All these moneys, if the act be valid, must eventually be repaid from assessments levied upon the lands embraced within the respective districts, while the annually recurring interest upon these moneys is also to be paid in the same way. Taking the California act as a model, it was also stated, and not contradicted, that several of the other states which contain portions of the arid belt (seven or eight of them) had passed irrigation acts, and that proceedings under them were generally awaiting the result of this litigation. The future prosperity of these states, it was claimed, depended upon the validity of this act as furnishing the only means practicable for obtaining artificial irrigation, without the aid of which millions and millions of acres would be condemned to lie idle and worthless, which otherwise would furnish enormous quantities of agricultural products, and increase the material wealth and prosperity of that whole section of country. On the other hand, it has been asserted, with equal earnestness, that the whole scheme of the act will, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... Portland, 149 U.S. 30, 40, 13 Sup.Ct ... 750, 37 L.Ed. 637; Fallbrook Irrig. Dist. v ... Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 163, 17 Sup.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed ... 429; Id., 136 U.S. 121, 10 Sup.Ct. 955, 34 L.Ed. 355), and ... increased hazard in operation (T. & St. L. Ry. Co. v ... ...
-
Spahn v. Stewart
... ... 630, 215 ... S.W. 408; Barrow v. Bradley, 190 Ky. 480, 227 S.W ... 1016; Barker v. Crum, 177 ... Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles County, supra; ... Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, ... 17 S.Ct ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
... ... La Grange, ... 113 U.S. 1. 28 L.Ed. 896; Fallbrook District v ... Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158, 161, 17 S.Ct ... ...
-
Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County
...portion of the Fifth Amendment, standing alone, restricts action only by the Federal Government, Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369 (1896); Nichols on Eminent Domain §§ 4.1, 4.8 (3d ed. 1964), the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause has......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g. , Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, J......
-
Reciprocity of advantage: the antidote to the antidemocratic trend in regulatory takings.
...note 13, at 356. (236.) NOVAK, supra note 4, at 36. (237.) 260 U.S. 22, 30 (1922). (238.) Id. at 30. (239.) 114 U.S. 606 (1885). (240.) 164 U.S. 112 (241.) 114 U.S. at 611. (242.) Id. at 614. (243.) Id. at 612. (244.) 164 U.S. 112. (245.) Id. at 163. (246.) 123 U.S. 623 (1887). (247.) Id. a......
-
Chapter 11 ACQUISITION OF MINING AND MINE-RELATED RIGHTS THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN
...See also Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 251, 252 (1905). [14] Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 161 et seq. (1896). See also Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905); Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906); Hairston v.......
-
Chapter 16 ACCESS PROBLEMS AND REMEDIES FOR OIL AND GAS OPERATORS
...Court in the fifth amendment of the federal Constitution. See, e.g., Cole v. LaGrange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885); Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112 (1896); Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439 (1930). However, courts in states using this type of provision cite decisions of the United Stat......