Crane Creek Reservoir Administration Board v. Washington County Irrigation District

• Decision Date: 31 January 1930
• Docket Number: 5320
• Citation: 284 P. 557,48 Idaho 662
• Parties: CRANE CREEK RESERVOIR ADMINISTRATION BOARD, an Association Composed of Five Members, One Elected by Weiser Irrigation District, a Municipal Corporation, One Elected by West Idaho Power Company, a Corporation, One Elected by Weiser Bench Irrigation Company, a Corporation, and Two Elected by Washington County Irrigation District, a Municipal Corporation, Which Association So Elected Brings This Action on Behalf of Its Said Principals, Being the Owners of the Crane Creek Reservoir; WEISER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation; WEISER BENCH IRRIGATION COMPANY, a Corporation, and WEST IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondents, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

284 P. 557

48 Idaho 662

CRANE CREEK RESERVOIR ADMINISTRATION BOARD, an Association Composed of Five Members, One Elected by Weiser Irrigation District, a Municipal Corporation, One Elected by West Idaho Power Company, a Corporation, One Elected by Weiser Bench Irrigation Company, a Corporation, and Two Elected by Washington County Irrigation District, a Municipal Corporation, Which Association So Elected Brings This Action on Behalf of Its Said Principals, Being the Owners of the Crane Creek Reservoir; WEISER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation; WEISER BENCH IRRIGATION COMPANY, a Corporation, and WEST IDAHO POWER COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondents, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant

No. 5320

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 31, 1930

JUDGMENT-IRRIGATION DISTRICT BONDS-DECREE OF CONFIRMATION-CONCLUSIONS-PARTIES-CAPACITY TO SUE.

1. Objection that administration board of irrigation companies lacked capacity to sue held unavailing, where private irrigation companies and irrigation districts were parties plaintiff with administrative board and their capacty to sue was not questioned.

2. Where four irrigation companies formed an agreement whereby administration board was appointed, whether administration board could join with the companies forming such board in suit on contract could be determined only by special demurrer on ground of misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

3. In suit by directors of irrigation districts for confirmation of bond issue "and matters in connection therewith," wherein contract defining rights and interests of various owners of property in irrigation districts was pleaded validity asserted, and court's approval thereof sought decree con- struing contract as authorized by C. S., sec. 4366, and holding it valid, held conclusive precluding contention in subsequent action that contract was invalid.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. B. S. Varian, Judge.

Action to recover on contract. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents.

George Donart, for Appellant.

An action must be prosecuted by the real party in interest except as otherwise provided in the Idaho Compiled Statutes. (C. S. 6634.)

The objection that an action is not prosecuted by the real party in interest may be raised by a general demurrer. (Pratt v. Northern P. Express Co., 13 Idaho 373, 121 Am. St. 268, 90 P. 341, 10 L. R. A., N. S., 499.)

An irrigation district is a quasi-public municipal corporation not organized for governmental purposes but to conduct the business for the private benefit of the owners of the land within its limits, and as respects its contracts made in the manner prescribed by law, it is a municipal corporation. ( American Falls Reservoir Dist. v. Thrall, 39 Idaho 105, 228 P. 236.)

Irrigation districts are quasi public or municipal corporations and as such have only such powers as are given to them by statute or such as are necessarily implied. (Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., 37 Idaho 300, 216 P. 250.)

Ed. R. Coulter, for Respondents.

The substance of the further comments of counsel is that the court was without jurisdiction in that confirmation proceeding to pass upon the legality of the contract, Exhibit I; that, therefore, the decree of court adjudging the said contract a legal, valid and binding contract is not res judicata but is open to collateral attack, and is void.

The case of Nampa etc. Irr. Dist. v. Petrie, 28 Idaho 227, 153 P. 425, is directly in point on this proposition. That was a proceeding for the examination, approval and confirmation by a district court of a contract between the district and the government of the United States, under which certain arid lands within the district were supplied with water for irrigation, and certain lands were drained. The court expressly held that sec. 2401, Revised Codes (which is the same as sec. 4364, C. S.), authorized special statutory proceedings which may be brought by the board of directors of an irrigation district in the district court to determine the validity of the successive steps taken for the purpose of authorizing the district to enter into a contract with the United States. In that case the court approved the contract in question and held it a binding obligation.

Having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and having the authority to enter the judgment in question, our contention is that the decision of the court approving this contract is res judicata upon the defendant and the world.

BAKER, District Judge. Givens, C. J., and Budge and McNaughton, JJ., concur. Varian, J., did not participate.

OPINION

BAKER, District Judge.

Prior to August 22, 1910, the Crane Creek Irrigation Land and Power Company was the sole owner of a partially completed reservoir known as the Crane Creek Reservoir, in Washington county together with certain lands and appurtenant water rights and on said date sold to the Sunnyside Irrigation District and to the Crane Creek Irrigation District definite but undivided interests in said reservoir. The works were found to be inadequate to impound sufficient water to properly irrigate the lands intended to be irrigated therefrom, were incumbered and the districts became insolvent. In an attempt to refinance the project and provide for the completion of the system, the indebtedness of the two irrigation districts was compromised, settled and in part paid from the proceeds of refunding bonds issued early in 1922. At that time the reservoir was owned by various persons, corporations and irrigation districts and on April 4, 1922, a contract, to which the Sunnyside and Crane Creek Irrigation Districts were parties, was entered into for the purpose of stating and defining the rights and interests of the various owners. The contract surrendered the management of the reservoir to a person to be selected by those interested,...