Board of Sup'rs of Riverside County, Cal., v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 11 May 1903
• Docket Number: 912.
• Citation: 122 F. 860
• Parties: BOARD OF SUP'RS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CAL., et al. v. THOMPSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

122 F. 860

BOARD OF SUP'RS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CAL., et al. v. THOMPSON et al.

No. 912.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 11, 1903

C. B Bullock and others, taxpayers of the Perris Irrigation District, together with the board of supervisors of Riverside county, state of California, seek by this writ of error to review the judgment of the court below rendered on proceedings which were instituted by the defendants in error to obtain a mandamus directing the said board of supervisors to levy a tax for the payment of a certain judgment which had been rendered in that court. The judgment had been obtained in an action brought on August 26, 1898, by Robert H Thompson against the Perris Irrigation District of Riverside county, Cal., upon certain delinquent interest coupons of bonds which had been issued by the said district. On the trial of the action the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff therein for the sum of $8,306.75, with costs. On March 28, 1901, judgment was rendered in accordance with that verdict. A writ or error was prosecuted from said judgment to this court, and on May 5, 1902, this court affirmed the judgment of the court below. In the meantime, on September 26, 1901, the said Robert H. Thompson appeared before the board of supervisors of Riverside county, and presented to said board his petition, wherein he alleged the existence of said irrigation district, the issuance of its bonds, his purchase thereof, and the judgment which he had obtained thereon, and averred that said judgment was unsatisfied, and that the district had no funds applicable to the payment thereof, and no property upon which execution could be levied, and that the board of directors of said district had ever since the year 1895 neglected to cause any assessment or levy to be made on the property thereof for the payment of such interest on said bonds; and he demanded that said board of supervisors cause an assessment roll of said district to be prepared, and that it make the levy required by section 39 of the act of the Legislature of the state of California approved March 31 1897 (St. 1897, p. 267, c. 189), and that said levy be sufficient in amount to satisfy said judgment, with legal interest thereon from the date of its rendition. The board of supervisors, on September 16, 1901, denied the petition, and refused to cause any levy of assessment as demanded therein. On September 18, 1901, the said Robert H. Thompson filed in the court below his petition for a writ of mandamus to said board of supervisors directing them immediately to levy, in accordance with the law, an assessment on the real property within said irrigation district sufficient to pay said judgment. On the same day the court ordered that an alternative writ of mandamus issue, and the writ was thereupon issued. A motion was made to quash the writ, and a demurrer was interposed, both of which were overruled by the court, and thereupon a peremptory writ of mandamus was ordered to be issued. On June 28, 1902, C. B. Bullock and others, claiming to be the owners of real estate within the boundaries of said district, applied for and obtained leave to intervene in said proceeding, and the order theretofore made for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus was set aside, and the plaintiffs in error filed answers to the petition of the defendant in error. On September 8, 1902, the court rendered judgment directing the issuance of the peremptory writ of mandamus as prayed for by the defendant in error. It is to review that judgment that the present writ of error is prosecuted.

Lyman Evans, John D. Works, Bradner W. Lee, and Lewis R. Works, for plaintiffs in error.

Christopher C. Wright, for defendant in error Robert H. Thompson.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

So far as the assignments of error seek to raise questions which were adjudicated in the former judgment of this court, they will not be here considered. It is contended that the state board of supervisors had no power to make the levy which was prayed for. The statute of 1897 (page 267, c. 189, Sec. 39) reads as follows:

'The board of directors shall then levy an assessment sufficient to raise the annual interest on the outstanding bonds, and in any year in which any bonds fall due must increase said assessment to an amount sufficient to raise a sum sufficient to pay the principal of the outstanding bonds as they mature. The secretary of the board must compute and enter in a separate column of the assessment book the respective sums, in dollars and cents, to be paid as an assessment on the property therein enumerated. When collected, the assessment shall be paid into the district treasury and be apportioned to the several proper funds. In

...