Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtAILSHIE, J.
Citation120 P. 461,21 Idaho 98
Decision Date04 January 1912
PartiesIRWIN BISSETT, Appellant, v. PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Respondents

120 P. 461

21 Idaho 98

IRWIN BISSETT, Appellant,
v.

PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT et al., Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 4, 1912


IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAW-BOND ISSUE ELECTION-VALIDITY OF STATUTE-QUALIFICATION OF ELECTORS.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. The act of March 6, 1911 (1911 Sess. Laws, p. 461), having been held unconstitutional and void, could not work a repeal of secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379, which that act sought to amend, and those sections are still in force and effect.

2. Where an act of the legislature attempts to amend certain sections of the statute and to repeal the old sections or other sections of the statute supposed to be in conflict therewith and the amendatory act is held unconstitutional and void, such act does not work a repeal of the sections amended or sought to be repealed.

3. Under the provisions of sec. 20, art. 1, of the constitution, the legislature has the power and authority to prescribe a property qualification for any person to vote at an election creating an indebtedness, but the legislature by the adoption of sec. 2396 of the Rev. Codes has not provided such a qualification for voting at an election to be held for the purpose of voting a bond issue in an irrigation district, and no such qualification has been required by the legislature.

4. Under the provisions of sec. 2386 of the Rev. Codes, an irrigation district has the power and authority to issue bonds for the purpose of collecting drainage, waste and seepage water and storing the same for the irrigation of land within such district.

5. As to whether or not an irrigation district may vote bonds for the purpose of constructing a drainage system within such irrigation district and draining overflowed and submerged lands, considered but not decided.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Suit for an injunction to restrain an irrigation district and the directors thereof from holding an election to vote upon the question of a bond issue. Judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Young & Brinck, for Appellant.

The property qualification contained in secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379, Rev. Codes, is clearly within the rule of Pioneer Irrigation Dist. v. Walker, and in violation of sec. 20, art. 1, of the constitution.

"If the provisions of an act are so connected in subject matter, dependent on each other, and designed to operate for the same purpose, or are otherwise so dependent in meaning that it cannot be presumed that the legislature would have passed one without the other, then if one part falls the entire act must fall." (Cunningham v. Thompson, 18 Idaho 149, 108 P. 898; International Text Book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91, 30 S.Ct. 481, 27 L. R. A., N. S., 493, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103; Campbell v. Bryant, 104 Va. 509, 52 S.E. 638; Blades v. Board of Water Commrs., 122 Mich. 366, 81 N.W. 271.)

An unconstitutional act of the legislature is as ineffectual as though it had never been passed. (Boales v. Ferguson, 55 Neb. 565, 76 N.W. 18.)

Sec. 2396 not being complete in itself, and not being rendered more so by reference to any other statute which is valid and existing, is uncertain and incapable of execution, and is invalid and of no force or effect. (Knight v. Trigg, supra; Hettinger v. Good Road Dist. No. 1, 19 Idaho 313, 113 P. 721.)

Rice, Thompson & Buckner, for Respondents.

The sections of the amendatory act which by implication repealed secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379 having been declared unconstitutional, the original sections must stand. (Barker v. State, 118 Ga. 35, 44 S.E. 874; People ex rel. Akin v. Butler St. Foundry & Iron Co., 201 Ill. 236, 66 N.E. 349; Ex parte Davis, 21 F. 396.)

"The unconstitutional provision for a property qualification of voters contained in said secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379 can be separated, so that though the unconstitutional provisions fall, the constitutional provisions may stand." (Cornish v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45, 9 N.W. 791; People v. Kenney, 96 N.Y. 295; Browne v. City of Mobile, 122 Ala. 159, 25 So. 223; State v. Ray, 153 Ind. 334, 54 N.E. 1067; In re Abel, 10 Idaho 288, 77 P. 621; State v. Scampini, 77 Vt. 92, 59 A. 201.)

AILSHIE, J. Stewart, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

OPINION [120 P. 462]

[21 Idaho 100] AILSHIE, J.

The respondent, the Pioneer Irrigation District, was duly organized in the year 1901 under and in conformity with the irrigation district law, and the organization thereof was thereafter duly confirmed by a decree of the court. (Pioneer Irrigation District v. Bradbury, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 P. 295.) It has ever since been operating and doing business under and in conformity with the irrigation laws of the state. The case now before us involves the proposed action of the board of directors of the district in reference to calling a bond election for the purpose of voting an issue of bonds in the sum of $ 313,290 to carry out a plan which has been adopted for the collection of drainage, waste and seepage waters within the district, and the storage of the same for use in the irrigation of lands of the district. The appellant herein applied to the district court for an injunction to restrain and enjoin the directors from further proceeding in accordance with the plans proposed. The district court denied the application, and this appeal was thereupon prosecuted.

We will consider the questions presented in the order in which they are considered in the briefs.

1. The appellant assigns each of the conclusions of law made by the trial court as error, the first of which is as follows: "That that portion of the act amending secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379 of the Revised Codes of Idaho, being held unconstitutional, said sections sought to be amended by said amendatory act are not affected." Appellant contends that since this court has held the act of March 6, 1911 (1911 Sess. Laws, p. 461), unconstitutional (Pioneer Irrigation Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304), and that act having repealed secs. 2375, 2376 and 2379, the result is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Petrie
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 Marzo 1923
    ...complement of its irrigation system. (Burt v. Farmers' Co-op. Irr. Co., 30 Idaho 752, 168 P. 1078; Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425; United States v.......
  • Burt v. Farmers' Co-op. Irr. Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 29 Septiembre 1917
    ...an irrigation district may construct drainage works as a necessary complement of its irrigation system. (Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425.) Under the......
  • Twin Falls Canal Company v. Huff, 6510
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Febrero 1938
    ...that an unconstitutional amendment does not affect a previous statute, and the same remains undisturbed. (Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 101, 120 P. 461; Lemhi County v. Boise Livestock Loan Co., 47 Idaho 712, 716, 278 P. 214; 59 C. J. 939, sec. 552; Board of Education v. Hunte......
  • In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District, 6972
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 24 Febrero 1943
    ...is a contract with the government which includes the Board of Control provision. In the case of Bissett v. Pioneer Irrigation District, 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461, this court construed the section of the Idaho statutes now appearing as Sec. 42-304, I. C. A. HOLDEN, C.J. AILSHIE, J., KOELSCH, D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Petrie
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 3 Marzo 1923
    ...complement of its irrigation system. (Burt v. Farmers' Co-op. Irr. Co., 30 Idaho 752, 168 P. 1078; Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425; United States v.......
  • Burt v. Farmers' Co-op. Irr. Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 29 Septiembre 1917
    ...an irrigation district may construct drainage works as a necessary complement of its irrigation system. (Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Stone, 23 Idaho 344, 130 P. 382; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425.) Under the......
  • Twin Falls Canal Company v. Huff, 6510
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 12 Febrero 1938
    ...that an unconstitutional amendment does not affect a previous statute, and the same remains undisturbed. (Bissett v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 21 Idaho 98, 101, 120 P. 461; Lemhi County v. Boise Livestock Loan Co., 47 Idaho 712, 716, 278 P. 214; 59 C. J. 939, sec. 552; Board of Education v. Hunte......
  • In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District, 6972
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 24 Febrero 1943
    ...is a contract with the government which includes the Board of Control provision. In the case of Bissett v. Pioneer Irrigation District, 21 Idaho 98, 120 P. 461, this court construed the section of the Idaho statutes now appearing as Sec. 42-304, I. C. A. HOLDEN, C.J. AILSHIE, J., KOELSCH, D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT