Bonneville County v. Bingham County

Decision Date10 May 1913
Citation132 P. 431,24 Idaho 1
PartiesBONNEVILLE COUNTY, Appellant, v. BINGHAM COUNTY, Respondent
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

COUNTIES-DIVISION-PUBLIC PROPERTY-HIGHWAYS-BRIDGES.

1. Sec 874, Rev. Codes, provides: "Highways are roads, streets or alleys and bridges laid out or erected by the public, or if laid out or erected by others, dedicated or abandoned to the public."

2. Under the provisions of sec. 874, Rev. Codes, public bridges are such as are held in trust for the public by municipalities, such as counties, cities, towns and villages and are open and common to the public without payment of toll. The municipal division named is not, strictly speaking the owner of the public highway or the bridges; but the municipality is recognized to have possession and control of the same and is merely trustee of the public under the laws of the state.

3. "Public property," as used in the act creating Bonneville county, Laws of 1911, p. 10, does not apply to roads, highways or bridges, but to such public property as the county owns by reason of acquiring the same out of the general funds of the county or by special assessment authorized by law, and does not mean bridges and highways.

From the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Bingham County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge.

From the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Bingham County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment affirming the report of a board under the act of the legislature passed and approved February 7, 1911 creating Bonneville county. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

R. S. Myers, W. P. Hanson and B. J. Briggs, for Appellant.

The term "public property," as used in the act creating the county of Bonneville out of a portion of what was formerly the county of Bingham, is broad enough to include all property belonging to the county of Bingham prior to the date of the division.

All county property except that expressly exempt should be taken into consideration and valued. (Shoshone Co. v. Thompson, 11 Idaho 130, at p. 142, 81 P. 73.)

J. E. Good and Hansbrough & Gagon, for Respondent.

A public bridge on a public highway is a part of the highway. (Stillman v. Hudson River Bridge Co., F. Cas. No. 12,851, 4 Blatchf. 74; City of Goshen v. Myers, 119 Ind. 196, 21 N.E. 657; Penn. Twp. v. Perry County, 78 Pa. 457; People v. Buffalo Co. Commissioners, 4 Neb. 150; Pittsburg & N.E. P. Ry. Co. v. Point Bridge Co., 165 Pa. 37, 30 A. 511, 26 L. R. A. 323.)

Under Revised Stats. 1887, sec. 850, declaring highways to be roads, streets or alleys and bridges, a bridge is a highway subject to the laws applicable to highways. (Village of Sandpoint v. Doyle, 14 Idaho 749, 95 P. 945, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 497.)

Strictly speaking, there is no local ownership of public highway bridges in the absence of statutory provisions therefor, they being parts of the general system of highways belonging to the state at large. (American Steel Dredge Works v. Board of Commrs., 170 Ind. 571, 85 N.E. 1, 82 N.E. (Ind. App.) 995; Pickens County v. Greene County, 171 Ala. 377, 54 So. 998; Elliott, Roads and Streets, 2d ed., sec. 28; Mills County v. Brown County, 87 Tex. 475, 29 S.W. 650.)

Public bridges are such as are held in trust for the public by governmental corporations such as counties, townships, cities, towns, and villages, and are open and common to the public without the payment of toll. The governmental divisions named do not, strictly speaking, acquire any private ownership in bridges, but they have the possession of them as trustees of the public under authority delegated by the legislature. (Elliott, Roads and Streets, 2d ed., secs. 31, 645; Lebanon Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Leap, 139 Ind. 443, 39 N.E. 57, 29 L. R. A. 342. See, also, 37 Cyc., pp. 200-203; County Commrs. of Cheyenne County v. County Commrs. of Bent County, 15 Colo. 320, 25 P. 508; Hempstead Co. v. Howard Co., 51 Ark. 344, 11 S.W. 478; Washington Co. v. Weld Co., 12 Colo. 152, 20 P. 273; Board of County Commrs. of Sierra Co. v. Dona Ana Co., 5 N. M. 190, 21 P. 83; State v. Hordey, 41 Kan. 630, 21 P. 601.)

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

OPINION

STEWART, J.

On February 7, 1911, the 11th session of the state legislature passed an act (Laws of 1911, p. 8) creating the county of Bonneville out of a part of Bingham county. Such act authorized the board of county commissioners of Bingham county and the county of Bonneville to appoint an auditing board and board of appraisers consisting of one member from each county. Such board was appointed. It appears that such board so appointed were unable to agree, and by authority of said act a third member was appointed, and on the 15th day of January, 1912, a majority of said board filed with the county commissioners of each county a copy of their report and conclusion; that thereafter, on the 15th of January, 1912, the report was by the commissioners of Bingham county duly accepted and adopted, and on the same day was by the commissioners of Bonneville county duly rejected. It appears also that one of the members of the board filed with each of said boards of county commissioners his minority report.

An appeal was taken by Bonneville county from the order made by the board of county commissioners of Bingham county accepting and adopting the report of the auditing board and board of appraisers to the district court of the sixth judicial district for Bingham county. The cause was tried, and on the 18th day of November, 1912, the trial court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment affirming the action of the board of commissioners of Bingham county. This appeal is from the judgment.

The only question presented to this court upon appeal is, whether finding 10 of the court is correct and authorized by the provisions of the act of February 7, 1911, being the act creating said Bonneville county. This finding is as follows:

"The court finds that the act of February 7, 1911 (Sess. Laws 1911, pages 8-16), is in praesenti, creating as one of the political subdivisions of the state of Idaho the county of Bonneville, immediately upon its passage and approval; that the term 'public property belonging to Bingham county,' as used in said act, embraces no public property the title to which is dependent solely upon its location, but applies only to property to which Bingham county held title irrespective of its division and irrespective of the location thereof; that said term does not apply to roads, highways, or bridges or to lands for which tax deeds or tax sale certificates were issued to the county, and that the value of such property was not required to be ascertained by the accountants, and has no relevancy to the adjustment of the affairs of said counties."

It is the contention of appellant that the trial court erred in holding that "public property," as used in the act creating Bonneville county (Laws of 1911, p. 10), includes all property belonging to the county of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lyons v. Bottolfsen
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1940
    ... ... Ada County. Hon. Charles E. Winstead, Judge ... Suit to ... restrain ... Bridges are part of the state highway system. ( Bonneville ... County v. Bingham County, 24 Idaho 1, 132 P. 431; secs ... 39-101 ... ...
  • Rex Twp. v. Bailey Twp.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1929
    ...county, for they belong to the general public.” See, also, State ex rel. Judith Basin Co. v. Poland, supra. In Bonneville County v. Bingham County, 24 Idaho 1, 132 P. 431, 432, the Idaho court had under construction an act creating plaintiff county out of defendant county. The court constru......

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