224 P. 429 (Idaho 1924), Boone v. District Court of Third Judicial District

Citation:224 P. 429, 38 Idaho 688
Opinion Judge:WM. E. LEE, J.
Party Name:LAFE BOONE, C. A. GROVES and O. G. F. MARKHUS. Commissioners of Drainage District No. 3, of the County of Ada, Plaintiffs, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA, and RAYMOND L. GIVENS, Presiding Judge, Defendants
Attorney:P. E. Cavaney, for Plaintiffs. J. B. Eldridge, for Defendants.
Judge Panel:WM. E. LEE, J. McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee, J., concur. McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee, J., concur.
Case Date:March 06, 1924
Court:Supreme Court of Idaho
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 429

224 P. 429 (Idaho 1924)

38 Idaho 688

LAFE BOONE, C. A. GROVES and O. G. F. MARKHUS. Commissioners of Drainage District No. 3, of the County of Ada, Plaintiffs,

v.

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA, and RAYMOND L. GIVENS, Presiding Judge, Defendants

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 6, 1924

MANDAMUS-DISTRICT COURT-JURISDICTION-DRAINS-DRAINAGE DISTRICTS-DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS-HEARING ON CONFIRMATION OF REPORT-NOTICE-SUFFICIENCY OF.

1. When a court refuses to hear and determine a cause upon the erroneous belief that it does not possess the requisite jurisdiction, mandamus will issue to compel the court to proceed.

[38 Idaho 689]

2. A notice of the hearing on confirmation of the report of drainage commissioners, addressed to the owners of land within the boundaries of the district established under C. S., sec. 4498, is insufficient notice to owners of land not included within the boundaries of such district.

3. The phrase, "The land owners and any and all persons or corporations owning or interested in lands," does not include "all parties interested" in the hearing on confirmation of the report of the commissioners of a drainage district.

4. A notice of hearing on confirmation of the report of drainage commissioners, addressed to all land owners and any and all persons or corporations owning or interested in lands, is not a sufficient notice to all parties interested.

5. The notice of the hearing on confirmation of the report of drainage commissioners must be given substantially in the manner and form prescribed by statute before the district court will have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters presented by the report of the commissioners.

6. The legislature has required that notice be given to all parties interested, and the pertinent inquiry is concerning the sufficiency of the notice that was given, not as tested by any constitutional requirement, but as tested by the statute.

Original proceeding for mandamus. Peremptory writ denied.

Demurrer sustained. Peremptory writ denied.

P. E. Cavaney, for Plaintiffs.

A failure to properly notify some of the land owners will not vitiate the proceedings as to those notified. ( Pittsburgh C. C. & St. L. Ry. v. Machler, 158 Ind. 159, 63 N.E. 210; Poundstone v. Baldwin, 145 Ind. 139, 44 N.E. 191; Grimes v. Coe, 102 Ind. 406, 1 N.E. 735; Goeppinger v. Boards of Suprs., 172 Iowa 30, 152 N.W. 58; Ross v. Board of Suprs., 128 Iowa 427, 104 N.W. 506, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 431.)

Notice to "all persons," or to "all persons interested," means all persons interested in lands within the drainage district. ( McCabe v. Grey, 20 Cal. 509; Barry v. Baker (Ky.), 93 S.W. 1061; Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Co., 145 Wis. 288, 130 N.W. 246; Santa Fe Drainage Dist. v. Waeltz, 41 Ill.App. 575.)

It is the rule of law in this state that all statutes must be liberally construed, with a view of accomplishing their aims and purposes. ( Parsons v. Wrble, 21 Idaho 695, 123 P. 638; C. S., sec. 4555.)

J. B. Eldridge, for Defendants.

The notice should be addressed to all persons interested and not limited to a particular class restricted within a limited and particular area. (C. S., sec. 4511; Maxwell v. Terrell (Ida.), 220 P. 411.)

The petitioners have a remedy other than mandamus. ( Blackwell Lumber Co. v. Flynn, 27 Idaho 632, 150 P. 42; Paxton v. Olden, 27 Idaho 597, 150 P. 40; State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 26 Minn. 223, 37 Am. Rep. 399, 2 N.W. 698; Connolly v. Wood, 13 Idaho 591, 92 P. 573.)

The statute as to notice must be followed, regardless of whether or not notice was otherwise given or acquired. This is the universal rule. ( Strode v. Strode, 6 Idaho 67, 96 Am. St. 249, 52 P. 161; Alexander v. Leland, 1 Idaho 425; Rayl v. Kirby, 180 Ind. 553, 103 N.E. 440.)

WM. E. LEE, J. McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee, J., concur.

OPINION

[38 Idaho 690] WM. E. LEE, J.

--This is a mandamus proceeding brought by plaintiffs, the commissioners of Drainage District No. 3, of Ada county, against defendant, one of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP