Elliott v. McCrea

Decision Date06 March 1913
Citation23 Idaho 524,130 P. 785
PartiesEDWIN E. ELLIOTT, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT S. McCREA, Clerk, Defendant
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DRAINAGE DISTRICT LAW - APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS-ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS-ISSUANCE OF BONDS.

1. The provisions of House Bill No. 92, passed by the twelfth session of the legislature and approved February 21st entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of drainage districts, and the construction and maintenance of a system of drainage, and to provide for the means of payment of the costs thereof, and declaring an emergency," authorizing the district judge of the judicial district in which a drainage district is located to appoint the drainage commissioners for the district, is not in violation of the constitution, and is not an infringement by the judicial department of the state government upon the functions of the executive branch of the government.

2. Sec 6 of art. 4 of the state constitution provides that the governor "shall nominate and, by and with the consent of the senate, appoint all officers whose offices are established by this constitution, or which may be created by law and whose appointment or election is not otherwise provided for," and this provision of the constitution leaves it to the discretion of the legislature when creating any office by legislative act to prescribe the method of filling the office and to designate the officer, board or body that shall make the appointment, and in case of failure on the part of the legislature to do so, the governor is vested by the constitution with the appointive power.

3. Under the provisions of House Bill No. 92, approved February 21, 1913, the legislature has "otherwise provided" for the appointment of drainage commissioners, and has directed that such appointment shall be made by the district judge. This was a legitimate exercise of the constitutional authority conferred upon the legislature.

4. The assessment of benefits provided for in House Bill No. 92 approved February 21, 1913, is not a tax within the purview and meaning of the constitution (sec. 5, art. 7). The assessment made under this act is dependent wholly upon the benefits to accrue, and where no benefits will accrue no assessment can be made, and the charge is one in rem against the specific tracts of land assessed for benefits and to the extent of the assessment only.

5. The provisions of House Bill No. 92, approved February 21, 1913 for the bonding of a drainage district without a vote of the people within the district, is not in violation of sec. 3, art. 8, of the state constitution. The indebtedness there provided for is not a municipal indebtedness contemplated by the constitution.

Original action for a writ of mandate. Demurrer to petition overruled and peremptory writ granted.

Demurrer to the petition overruled and a peremptory writ issued.

Richards & Haga, for Plaintiff.

The legislature has power to prescribe the manner in which a municipality or other political division of the state may be created. (Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 4 S.Ct. 663, 28 L.Ed. 569; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; 2 Wiel on Water Rights, p. 1250; 1 Abbott on Municipal Corp., sec. 21.)

There is no inhibition in the constitution of Idaho against creating an indebtedness by a municipal body without submitting the question to a vote, where the assessment is special. (McGilvery v. City, 13 Idaho 338, 90 P. 348; Byrns v. City, 21 Idaho 403, 121 P. 1034; Hickey v. City, 22 Idaho 46, 124 P. 280.)

In the absence of a constitutional provision to the contrary, any one of the three departments of government may, under the authority of a statute, appoint for any class of offices in any of the three governmental departments. (People v. Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587, 56 Am. Rep. 793, 5 N.E. 596, 8 N.E. 788; Eddy v. Kincaid, 28 Or 537, 41 P. 156, 655; State v. George, 22 Ore. 142, 29 Am. St. 586, 29 P. 356, 16 L. R. A. 737; Evansville v. State, 118 Ind. 426, 21 N.E. 267, 4 L. R. A. 93.)

We assume, that acts being valid to reclaim arid lands by placing water thereon, similar acts to reclaim nonproductive swamp lands by taking water therefrom would be equally valid, provided the acts authorizing the creation of such districts do not infringe upon any fundamental law. (Nampa etc. Irr. Dist. v. Brose, 11 Idaho 474, 83 P. 499; Billings Sugar Co. v. Fish, 40 Mont. 256, 20 Ann. Cas. 264, 106 P. 565, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 973.)

There is no inhibition in our constitution against creating an indebtedness within a municipality where such indebtedness is based upon a special assessment according to benefits. (People v. Sacramento Drainage Dist., 155 Cal. 373, 103 P. 207; McGilvery v. City of Lewiston, supra; Byrns v. City of Moscow, supra; Hickey v. City of Nampa, supra; Land Owners v. People, 113 Ill. 296.)

The question of the constitutional power of courts or judges to appoint officers is quite fully considered in the note to the case of State v. George, 22 Ore. 142, 29 P. 356, 16 L. R. A. 737. See, also, Ross v. Board, 69 N.J.L. 291, 55 A. 310; People v. Freeman, 80 Cal. 233, 13 Am. St. 122, 22 P. 173; In re Terrett, 34 Mont. 325, 86 P. 266; People v. Hoffman, 116 Ill. 587, 56 Am. Rep. 793; Evansville v. State, 118 Ind. 426, 21 N.E. 267, 4 L. R. A. 93; State v. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 491, 85 P. 264; State v. Crosby, 92 Minn. 176, 99 N.W. 636.

Perky & Crow, for Defendant.

Appointment to office is essentially an executive function. (State v. Denny, 118 Ind. 382, 21 N.E. 252, 4 L. R. A. 79; State v. Peelle, 121 Ind. 495, 22 N.E. 654; In re Achley, 4 Abb. Pr. 35; 29 Cyc. 1370, and cases cited under note 65.)

Sec. 25 provides for the issuing of bonds for the payment of the total expenses of constructing the drainage system, incurred or to be incurred. The bonds are to be issued by the board of commissioners of the district, and there is no requirement that a vote of the electors of such district be had. This bonding feature of the law is unconstitutional. (Bannock County v. Bunting, 4 Idaho 156, 37 P. 277; Theiss v. Hunter, 4 Idaho 788, 45 P. 2; Dunbar v. Board of Commrs., 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409; McNutt v. Lemhi County, 12 Idaho 63, 84 P. 1054.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

This action involves the constitutionality of House Bill No. 92, passed by the twelfth session of the legislature and approved by the governor on the 21st of February last, and entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of drainage districts, and the construction and maintenance of a system of drainage, and to provide for the means of payment of the costs thereof, and declaring an emergency."

The parties have specifically waived all question as to the procedure adopted for the purposes of raising the constitutional questions involved and for the purposes of this case both parties agree upon the procedure.

This act authorizes the creation of drainage districts, provides for the selection of the necessary officers and the procedure to be adopted and pursued in carrying out the objects and purposes of the act. It might well be termed the complement of the irrigation act. The one provides for bringing water onto the land so as to render it productive; the other provides for getting water off of land so as to render it productive and habitable.

It seems that a petition in due form, signed by the requisite number of land owners in the district, has been presented to the clerk of the district court in and for Bonner county, with the request that he file the same, and that such further proceedings be taken as required by the act for the formation and organization of a drainage district. The clerk has refused to file the petition or to take any action thereon, upon the ground that the act under which the proceeding is instituted is unconstitutional and void.

The first point urged is that the act is in conflict with the constitution, for the reason that sec. 5 of the act provides for the appointment of "drainage commissioners" for the district by the judge of the district court of the judicial district in which the drainage district is located, and that the act of appointing officers is purely an executive or ministerial duty and is not a judicial function. This objection overlooks the primary and fundamental question underlying the whole proposition, namely, that the legislature has in fact spoken and acted and has designated the officer who shall make the appointment. The fact that this officer is a judge of a court does not render it any more of a judicial act than if such act were performed by some executive or ministerial officer.

Again the constitution, sec. 6 of art. 4, provides that the governor "shall nominate and, by and with the consent of the senate, appoint all officers whose offices...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Burt v. Farmers' Co-op. Irr. Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 29 September 1917
    ...v. Roanoke, 91 Va. 562, 22 S.E. 360, 42 L. R. A. 636; Raleigh v. Peace, 110 N.C. 32, 14 S.E. 521, 17 L. R. A. 330; Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 P. 785; Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 378, 34 Am. Rep. Craw v. Tolona, 96 Ill. 255, 36 Am. Rep. 143; Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 613, 628; Ivan......
  • Hobson v. Hansen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 9 February 1967
    ...People ex rel. Rusch v. White, 334 Ill. 465, 166 N.E. 100, 64 A.L.R. 1006 (1929) (election boards, Judges and clerks); Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 P. 785 (1913) (drainage commissioners); Minsinger v. Rau, 236 Pa. 327, 84 A. 902 (1912) (board of public education); People v. Evans, 2......
  • American Falls Reservoir District v. Thrall
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 13 May 1924
    ... ... charge in rem against the specific tracts of land assessed ... for benefits. ( Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 ... All ... taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects. (Art ... 7, sec. 5, Constitution of ... ...
  • Stark v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 5 November 1927
    ... ... 141, 70 L.Ed. 330; McGilvery v. City ... of Lewiston, 13 Idaho 338, 90 P. 348; Byrns v ... Moscow, 21 Idaho 398, 121 P. 1034; Elliott v ... McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 P. 785; Independent ... Highway Dist. v. Ada County, 24 Idaho 416, 134 P. 542.) ... The ... Idaho ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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