Black Canyon Irr. Dist. v. Fallon

• Citation: 21 Idaho 537,122 P. 850
• Parties: BLACK CANYON IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JOHN FALLON, Appellant
• Decision Date: 20 March 1912
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

122 P. 850

21 Idaho 537

BLACK CANYON IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JOHN FALLON, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 20, 1912

IRRIGATION DISTRICT BONDS-CONFIRMATION-FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. In proceedings brought under the provisions of secs. 2401, 2402 and 2403 of the Rev. Codes for the purpose of having the district court examine, approve and confirm the proceedings of an irrigation district in authorizing the issuance of bonds of said district, where an answer is filed to the petition for confirmation denying the material allegations of the complaint, the trial court should find on all of the material issues made by the pleadings and upon which evidence is introduced.

2. In such action, however, where no answer is filed and no issue joined upon the material allegations of the petition, a general finding that the different provisions of the statute have been fully and completely complied with, and that all things had been done required by the statute, and that all the allegations in the petition were true, is sufficient to support a judgment of confirmation.

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

An action to confirm the procedure of an irrigation district in authorizing and issuing district bonds. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Smith &amp Scatterday, and D. D. Harger, for Appellant, cite no authorities.

Rice Thompson & Buckner, for Respondent.

In all cases tried by the court without a jury, the court should file findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which to base a judgment, except in cases where the statute otherwise expressly provides. (Standley v. Flint, 10 Idaho 629, 79 P. 815; Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns, 13 Idaho 514, 91 P. 92; Brown v. Macey, 13 Idaho 451 90 P. 339; Emmett Irr. Dist. v. Shane, 19 Idaho 332, 113 P. 444.)

STEWART, C. J. Ailshie and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STEWART, C. J.

This is a proceeding brought under the provisions of secs. 2401, 2402 and 2403, Rev. Codes, for the purpose of having the district court examine, approve and confirm the proceedings of the Black Canyon Irrigation District, organized under the laws of this state, in its proceedings authorizing the issuance of bonds of said district in the sum of $ 7,134,638.05.

An answer was filed to the petition for confirmation by John Fallon, a party interested in said district. In this answer Fallon denies the material facts of the petition; the answer is made upon information and belief. Upon the petition and answer the case was tried to the court and findings of facts and conclusions of law were filed, and a judgment entered thereon as follows:

"That each and all of the proceedings taken by the Black Canyon Irrigation District to secure and provide for and authorize the issuing of the bonds of said district in the sum of Seven Million One Hundred Thirty-four Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-eight and 5/100 Dollars ($ 7,134,638.05) and affecting the validity of said bonds, up to and including the resolution of the board of directors of said district, declaring that said election in said district for authorizing the issuing of said bonds had been in favor of the issuing of said bonds, and that the bonds of said district were authorized to be issued in said sum, be and the same are hereby approved and confirmed, and that the legal and valid bonds of said district, in the sum of Seven Million One Hundred Thirty-four Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-eight and 5/100 Dollars ($ 7,134,638.05), were duly authorized to be issued by said district.

"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed. That the cost of this proceeding be apportioned between the parties thereto."

From this judgment this appeal was taken.

It is conceded by counsel for appellant that the proceedings described in the petition and the court's action in confirming and approving said bonds were strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law governing the same, except that the court erred in making any findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case. It is the contention of counsel for appellant that in a case of this kind a general finding in the judgment is all that...