Campbell v. Millard County Drainage Dist. No. 3

• Decision Date: 18 August 1928
• Docket Number: 4743
• Citation: 269 P. 1023,72 Utah 298
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. MILLARD COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 3 et al

269 P. 1023

72 Utah 298

CAMPBELL v. MILLARD COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 3 et al

No. 4743

Supreme Court of Utah

August 18, 1928

Original mandamus proceeding by Bessie A. Campbell against the Millard County Drainage District No. 3 and others.

ALTERNATIVE WRIT QUASHED, and writ of mandate denied.

Tangren & Crafts, of Delta, for plaintiff.

Soule &amp Spalding, of Salt Lake City, for defendants.

CHERRY J. THURMAN, C. J., and STRAUP, HANSEN, and GIDEON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CHERRY, J.

The plaintiff, the owner of an unpaid bond of $ 500 maturing August 1, 1928, issued by the Millard County drainage district No. 3, in this proceeding applies for a writ of mandate requiring the board of supervisors of the district to prepare a statement and estimate, etc., and certify a tax of $ 75 per acre on all of the lands in the district, for the purpose of raising money to pay the plaintiff's claim and other indebtedness, together aggregating $ 600,000, maturing at the same time. Pursuant to the application, an alternative writ was issued, and in response thereto due return has been made to said writ. The application is resisted upon the ground that the proposed levy of taxes will exceed the amount of benefits assessed upon the several tracts of land embraced within the district.

The district was organized November 13, 1917, under Comp. Laws Utah 1917, tit. 26, §§ 2040-2073, and embraced 43,000 acres of land. On June 3, 1918, the assessment of benefits to each tract of land was finally made and determined as provided by law. The benefits so assessed varied with different tracts of land as finally equalized and confirmed ranged from $ 35 to $ 70 per acre. The total amount of benefits assessed was $ 2,584,373.68. Thereafter bonds were authorized for $ 1,000,000, and on August 1, 1918, issued and sold. Later, and during the year 1921, additional bonds, amounting to the principal sum of $ 440,000, were authorized, issued and sold. Subsequently the district issued and sold tax anticipation notes for $ 200,000, to pay previously maturing interest coupons on bonds of the district. Of the indebtedness of the district, $ 600,000, in which is included a $ 500 bond owned by the plaintiff, became due and payable on August 1, 1928. The board of supervisors of the district prepared a statement and estimate of the amount of money to be raised by taxation within the district for the year 1928, amounting to $ 193,000, and levied the amount thereof as a tax upon the lands of the district, and certified the same to the county assessor of the proper county.

Upon the ground that the money thus to be raised will be grossly insufficient to meet the obligations of the district which become due in August 1, 1928, and upon the further showing that taxes levied upon a great portion of the lands of the district are uncollectible, the plaintiff demands and seeks by this proceeding to require the board of supervisors of the district to certify a tax levy of $ 75 per acre upon all of the lands of the district. Other details of facts need not be stated, because the matter is submitted for decision upon the single question of whether any tract of land of the district may be taxed for a sum exceeding the amount of benefits assessed against it. It is clear upon the record that the proposed tax, if authorized and commanded, will, with the taxes heretofore levied and collected, greatly exceed the amount of the benefits assessed upon the respective tracts of land sought to be taxed.

The plaintiff contends that the indebtedness is a general obligation of the district, and that every tract of land within the district is subject to taxation without limit until the debts and liabilities of the district are paid. The defendants contend that the maximum limit of taxation of any particular tract of land within the district is the amount of benefits resulting to the land from the improvement, which has been assessed, equalized, and confirmed by the proper authority.

Much is said in argument concerning the legal nature of a drainage district, and claims are made that it is a municipal corporation. We are not concerned here with the legal relationships, as between creditors and the district itself as a corporation. It may be conceded that the district itself is liable absolutely for the indebtedness created, and that any property or assets it owned would be subject to the claims of creditors; but the question here relates to the power of the corporation to levy and collect taxes from individual owners of lands embraced within the district. Assuming that the drainage district is a municipal corporation, its legal power to exact taxes must be found in the law which creates it and defines its powers. The general scheme of the Drainage District Act is to provide for the improvement of lands by draining them, and provision is made for paying the cost of the improvement by taxes levied upon the lands in the proportion that the lands are benefited by the improvement. It is contemplated that the benefits will be sufficient for that purpose. Section 2054 of the act provides that if it is found, after the examination prescribed for the purpose, that the costs and expenses of construction and maintenance and damages accruing are more than equal to the benefits which may inure to the lands in...