Colburn v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 06 February 1913 |
| Citation | 130 P. 381,23 Idaho 337 |
| Parties | F. J. COLBURN, Respondent, v. R. B. WILSON et al., Defendants, and C. L. TALMADGE, Intervenor and Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAW-INCOMPLETE CONTRACT-ACTS ULTRA VIRES-RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION.
1. Contract in this case examined, and held so imperfect indefinite and incomplete as to render it impossible for a court to enter a decree for its enforcement or determine its real terms and provisions.
2. An irrigation district is a quasi-municipal corporation organized for the specific purpose of providing ways and means of irrigating lands within the district and maintaining an irrigation system for that purpose.
3. A contract entered into by the board of directors of an irrigation district, giving to a stranger the management and control of the reservoir, dam and main canal, and taking that management and control out of the district, would be ultra vires and void.
4. As to whether the right to enlarge a canal belonging to an irrigation district for the purpose of carrying an additional volume of water for power purposes might be condemned by an individual or another district, quaere.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Action to enjoin the directors of an irrigation district from attempting to carry out a certain alleged contract, on the ground the same was ultra vires>. The third party intervened. Judgment for the plaintiff and intervenor appealed. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondents. Petition for rehearing denied.
Richards & Haga and McKeen F. Morrow, for Appellant.
Irrigation districts are formed for the sole purpose of obtaining and distributing water for the irrigation of the lands within the district, and the irrigation district law will be given a liberal construction so as to sustain contracts having for their object the increasing of the water supply and reducing the maintenance charges to the land owners, and which do not incur obligations on the part of the district, or in any way hinder or prevent it from discharging its duty to the land owners and from carrying out the purposes for which it was created. (Jenison v. Redfield, 149 Cal. 500, 87 P 62; Settlers' Irr. Dist. v. Settlers' Canal Co., 14 Idaho 504, 94 P. 829; South Pasadena v. Pasadena Co., 152 Cal. 579, 93 P. 490; 2 Wiel on Water Rights, 3d ed., p. 1255; 3 Kinney on Irrigation, 2d ed., sec. 1387.)
The board of directors of irrigation districts are empowered by sec. 2386, Rev. Codes, as amended, to "do any and every lawful act necessary to be done that sufficient water may be furnished to each land owner in said district for irrigation purposes," and a contract made by the board, which is not expressly prohibited by law, which will increase the amount of water which the district may distribute to the land owners for irrigation purposes, and reduce the maintenance charge, is not ultra vires or void. (1 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, secs. 376, 377; Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 15 Conn. 475, 501; 28 Cyc. 634, 635, and cases there cited.)
Wood & Driscoll, for Respondent.
The board of directors of an irrigation district has precisely the powers expressly given it by the statute and no others, and the power to make the present contract has not been given by statute, and it is in fact expressly prohibited. (Sec. 2392, Idaho Rev. Codes; Lincoln and Dawson County Irr. Dist. v. McNeal, 60 Neb. 613, 83 N.W. 847-849; Mitchell v. Patterson, 120 Cal. 286, 52 P. 589; Stimson v. Allessandro Irr. Dist., 135 Cal. 389, 67 P. 496, 1034.)
An irrigation district is a public or quasi-municipal corporation. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; City of Nampa v. Nampa etc. Dist., 19 Idaho 779-787, 115 P. 979; Bochmer v. Big Rock Creek Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 19, 48 P. 908; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329, 77 P. 937.)
See 2387 of the codes provides that the legal title to all property of the district vests in the district, and is held in trust for and set apart to the uses and purposes set forth in the title to which the section is a part and the use of a private individual for power purposes does not there appear. The board of directors is authorized to hold, use, acquire, manage, occupy and possess the same, but nowhere are they given the power to dispossess themselves or the district of any part of the property, much less to dispose entirely of any property vested in the district. (Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 531; Merchants' Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., supra; Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 440, 97 P. 1124; Jenison v. Redfield, 149 Cal. 500, 87 P. 62; 3 Dillon on Mun. Corp. , 5th ed., sec. 1102; 28 Cyc. 624 (d).)
The judgment in this case should be affirmed.
In the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 11742
... ... 421 (1930); Munn v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 43 Idaho 198, 252 P. 865 (1926); Stuart v. Noble Ditch Co., 9 Idaho 765, 76 P. 255 (1904); Wilson v. Boise City, 6 Idaho 391, 55 P. 887 (1899); Arave v. Idaho Canal Co., 5 Idaho 68, 46 P. 1024 (1896) ... Other courts have held ... King Hill Irr. Dist., 66 Idaho 76, 155 P.2d 605 (1945); Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Waler, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304 (1911); Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381 (1913); Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, 136 P. 618 (1913); and as 'quasi-public corporations,' ... ...
-
Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
... ... quasi-municipal corporations." (Hertle v. Ball, ... 9 Idaho 193, 72 P. 953; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v ... Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; Colburn v ... Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; Little Willow Irr ... Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905; Payette ... Heights Irr. Dist. v ... ...
-
Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. All Parties and Persons
...v. Hussey, 101 Cal.App.2d 457, 472, 225 P.2d 674; Bottoms v. Madera Irrigation District, 74 Cal.App. 681, 702, 242 P. 100; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381. Likewise the state is not the owner of the domestic water of the state in the sense that it has absolute power and dominion......
-
In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District
...without which the existence of the district would be worse than useless. Nor do the cases cited support appellants' contention. In Colburn v. Wilson, supra, it appears the owned a dam and reservoir and a certain part of a main canal which supplied water to its landowners and that it entered......