Emmett Irrigation District v. McNish

Decision Date07 November 1923
Citation38 Idaho 241,220 P. 409
PartiesEMMETT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JOHN McNISH, Appellant
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

TITLE TO ACT-REFUNDING BONDS OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT-ACCUMULATED INDEBTEDNESS SUBJECT TO REFUNDING.

1. It is too late to question the sufficiency of the title of a statute after the statute has been incorporated in the general code of laws of the state by legislative enactment.

2. Held, that C. S., sec. 4375, authorizing an irrigation district to refund its bonded indebtedness, does not impair the obligation of any contract in question in this case.

3. C S., sec. 4375, provides that as a prerequisite to the issuance of refunding bonds by an irrigation district "there shall not be funds in the treasury of such district available for the payment and redemption of such bonds and the accrued and unpaid interest thereon." This language authorizes the refunding of the total debt arising from the original bond issue, including accumulated unpaid interest thereon, judgments on such unpaid interest, and interest on such judgments.

4. C S., sec. 4375, authorizes an irrigation district to issue refunding bonds as a single issue and a single series notwithstanding the fact that the bonds thus refunded matured serially.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Gem County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action for confirmation of proceedings of board of directors of irrigation district in re issuance of refunding bonds. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

R. B. Ayers and Richards & Haga, for Appellant.

The refunding act of 1915 is unconstitutional, in that the title embraces more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith and the subjects are not expressed in the title. (Const., art. 3, sec. 16; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Idaho 338, 74 P. 962.)

The refunding act of 1915 impairs the obligation of the bondholders' contract. (Art. 1, sec. 16, Idaho Const.; art. 1, sec. 10, U. S. Const.; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 1090.)

The refunding statute does not authorize the issuance of refunding bonds to refund obligations represented by overdue interest coupons, judgments obtained on such coupons or interest on such judgments. (City of Cincinnati v. Guckenberger, 60 Ohio St. 533, 54 N.E. 376.)

The board of directors was without power to issue the refunding bonds as a single series and a single issue. (C. S., art. 6, tit. 33, secs. 4360, 4375, 4377.)

J. P. Reed and Rice & Bicknell, for Respondent.

Where a statute has been incorporated in the general code of laws of the state, it is too late to raise the objection that the title to the original act was insufficient under Const., art. 3, sec. 16. (36 Cyc. 1068; Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 25 Idaho 433, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 191, 138 P. 127; Curoe v. Spokane & Inland Electric Ry. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 186 P. 1101.)

The statute authorizing the refunding of irrigation district bonds did not impair the obligation of any contract. (Board of Commrs. v. National Life Ins. Co., 90 F. 232, 22 C. C. A. 591; Board of Commrs. v. Society for Savings, 90 F. 233, 32 C. C. A. 596.)

The expression "bonded indebtedness" in its ordinary and generally accepted sense means not only the principal amount named in the bond, but also accrued interest, and C. S., sec. 4375, clearly contemplates the refunding of accrued and unpaid interest as well as the principal of the bonds to be refunded. (1 Words & Phrases (1st ed.), p. 835; Park v. Chandler, 114 Ga. 466, 40 S.E. 523; C. S., sec. 4375.)

Under the express provisions of the refunding act, the board of directors of an irrigation district is authorized to determine by resolution whether the bonds will be issued in one or more series and one or more issues, and the resolution adopted in this case was in full compliance with the statute. (C. S., sec. 4377.)

T. BAILEY LEE, Commissioner. Budge, C. J., and McCarthy, Dunn and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

T. BAILEY LEE, Commissioner.

The Emmett Irrigation District, respondent, organized in 1910 issued and sold its six per cent interest coupon bonds in the principal sum of $ 898,600. Thereafter, an extended litigation over the validity of the issue was finally determined in its favor. But during the interim, no payments having been made, the original indebtedness had been increased to $ 1,208,200 by reason of overdue interest, judgments therefor, and legal interest on such judgments.

To dispose of this accumulated burden, the district's board of directors, pursuant to the provisions of C. S., sec. 4375, on Nov. 3, 1921, duly adopted a resolution calling a special election of the district's qualified voters to authorize the issuance of refunding bonds in such total sum. The election was regularly held, the issue authorized, the assessment had, the list of apportionment and distribution of benefits made, and a resolution passed by the board directing the issuance of such bonds in manner, condition and form: all in endeavored compliance with the provisions of C. S., art. 6, tit. 33. The resolution directed that the bonds "be issued in one or more series as may hereafter appear to be for the best interests of said district and the president and secretary of the district are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to ascertain forthwith whether said refunding bonds may be exchanged for the bonds and coupons to be refunded, and if such exchange can be effected then said refunding bonds shall be issued as one issue and as speedily as may be."

Subsequently, the directors filed in the district court of Gem county their petition praying the court's confirmation of all of the aforesaid proceedings. To this petition the appellant, an occupying owner within the district, interposed his demurrer generally attacking the petition's sufficiency. The demurrer was overruled, demurrant refused to plead further, findings and decree were entered in favor of respondent, and from this decree the demurrant has appealed.

Six specifications of error are urged as follows:

1. The district court erred in not holding and deciding that the refunding act of 1915 was unconstitutional because of an insufficient title under section 16 of art. 3 of the Idaho constitution.

2. The district court erred in not holding and deciding that the said refunding act of 1915 was a law impairing the obligation of contracts in violation of the state and federal constitutions.

3. That the learned district court erred in holding and deciding that refunding bonds could be issued by an irrigation district to refund accrued interest upon the bonds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco v. Citizens Bank & Trust Company, of Pocatello
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Junio 1933
    ... ... 3, sec. 16) ... APPEAL ... from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for ... Bannock County. Hon. Robert ... R. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 186 P. 1101, 37 L. R. A. 923; ... Emmett Irr. Dist. v. McNish, 38 Idaho 241, 220 P ... B. W ... Davis, ... water for irrigation purposes on lands in the state of Idaho ... and providing that such ... ...
  • Wanke v. Ziebarth Const. Co., 7411
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 1949
    ... ... E. R. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 646, 186 P. 1101, ... 37 A.L.R. 923; Emmett [69 Idaho 76] Irr. Dist ... v. McNish, 38 Idaho 241, 244, 220 P. 409, it ... ...
  • Meadows v. City of Logan
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1939
    ... ... 135 So. 392; Brady v. Cooper, 46 S.D. 419, 193 N.W ... 246; Emmett Irr. Dist. v. McNish, 38 Idaho 241, 220 ... P. 409; Green v. State, 33 ... ...
  • In Re: On Rehearing
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1949
    ... ... E ... R. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 646, 186 P. 1101, 37 A.L.R. 923; Emmett ... [69 Idaho 76] ... Irr ... Dist. v. McNish, 38 Idaho ... ...

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