City of Butte v. School Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 06 January 1904 |
| Citation | 74 P. 869,29 Mont. 336 |
| Parties | CITY OF BUTTE v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Commissioners' Opinion. Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; E. W Harney, Judge.
Action by the city of Butte against School District No. 1. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E. M Lamb and Jno. Templeman, for appellant.
Peter Breen, for respondent.
This action was instituted by plaintiff for the purpose of recovering from the defendant district an amount claimed to be due plaintiff as a special assessment against the property of the defendant to pay the cost of sprinkling certain streets along and in front of the real property owned by defendant. A general demurrer was filed to the complaint which was sustained. Judgment was entered for the defendant dismissing the action. This appeal is from the judgment.
It appears that the defendant district owns certain real estate in the city of Butte, that sprinkling districts were created by the city, and the streets on which the defendant's property abuts were sprinkled during the year 1900. It is alleged in the complaint that the property of defendant was specifically benefited by the sprinkling of the streets, but it does not appear that such property received any benefit therefrom beyond that of other property in the city. Nor does it appear that the sprinkling done was any more than the ordinary street sprinkling. The ordinances and resolutions contained in the record indicate the contrary. The complaint alleges that the defendant is the owner of this property, but it is silent as to whether the property is used for school purposes. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it is presumed that the sprinkling done was the ordinary street sprinkling, and that the property of the school district was and is used for educational purposes. Witter v. Mission School District, 121 Cal. 350, 53 P. 905, 66 Am. St. Rep. 33.
It is claimed by appellant that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint and in entering judgment of dismissal of plaintiff's action. The appellant contends that this is a local improvement, and that the Constitution and statutory exemptions from taxation of property used for educational purposes do not apply, and that an assessment may be made against this property to assist in defraying the expenses of such improvements. The distinction between improvements and incidental expenses necessary to the preservation of school property and the maintenance of the school must be kept in mind.
A local improvement, within the meaning of the law, is an improvement which, by reason of its being confined to a locality enhances the value of property situated within the particular district, as distinguished from benefits diffused by it throughout the municipality. The only basis on which special taxation or special assessments can be sustained is that the property subject to the assessments or taxation will be enhanced in value by such improvements to the extent of the burden imposed. Chicago v. Blair, 149 Ill. 310, 36 N.E. 829, 24 L. R. A. 412; Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 113. The value of private property, whether held for occupancy, rentals, or speculation, is enhanced by public improvements, if enhanced at all, upon a pecuniary valuation. The fact that the improvements render the private property more desirable or more profitable is not considered, except for the purpose of determining the increase in money value. School property stands on a different footing from that of private property, and is used for a different purpose. It is not held for speculation, rentals, or private occupancy; is not subject to barter or sale, within the ordinary meaning of these terms; its intrinsic worth is its value for educational purposes; it is not affected by market fluctuations. Its money value is immaterial; its true worth is its effectiveness for educational purposes. The Constitution provides that the state shall establish and maintain free public schools, and in performing this duty it exercises a function strictly public and governmental. School districts are created in pursuance of constitutional and legislative commands, and there is imposed upon them in part this governmental function, and in order properly to discharge it such districts are permitted to hold school property. They have no other duty except to perform for the state this public function, and they are permitted to hold property only that they may perform it. The Constitution provides what shall constitute the school fund, and further provides (article 11, § 3) that this "fund shall forever remain inviolate." By constitutional authority and...
To continue reading
Request your trial