Holland v. Avondale Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1917
• Citation: 166 P. 259,30 Idaho 479
• Parties: CHARLES HOLLAND, Appellant, v. THE AVONDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an Association, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

166 P. 259

30 Idaho 479

CHARLES HOLLAND, Appellant, v. THE AVONDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an Association, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 23, 1917

IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-ASSESSMENTS-SALE OF LANDS FOR DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS-PUBLIC OFFICER-RES ADJUDICATA-FINDINGS OF FACT.

1. Where the steps taken by the officers of an irrigation district in levying assessments and spreading the same upon the assessment-roll, and matters connected therewith, are regular, upon failure to pay the assessment, the right of sale follows.

2. The treasurer of an irrigation district is under an affirmative statutory duty to accept nothing but "lawful money of the United States" in payment of assessments.

3. An agreement whereby a treasurer of an irrigation district is to accept a tender other than "lawful money of the United States," as provided by statute, is a legal nullity.

4. Where an assessment is duly levied by an irrigation district and the same is unpaid and delinquent, it is the duty of the treasurer under the law to proceed to sell the land.

5. Where an irrigation district has been regularly organized and the benefits for the cost of the works apportioned to the land, such matters become res adjudicata and are not subject to collateral attack.

6. Special assessments are not provided for in secs. 2407 to 2409, Rev. Codes (amended, Laws 1911, p. 200), and are therefore to be levied and collected in conformity with the procedure for levying and collecting assessments for the payment of principal and interest of bonds, and the assessment is to be listed and carried out in the assessment-books in the same proportion as the assessment of benefits for the cost of the works.

7. A finding of the trial court based upon substantially conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.

[As to power of taxation and for what purposes it can be exercised see note in 8 Am.St. 506]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. R. N. Dunn, Judge.

Action to enjoin sale of property for failure to pay assessments. Judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Judgment of the district court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Robert D. Leeper, for Appellant.

The contract to furnish appellant's lands with water free from any charge for maintenance fees is valid and binding upon the respondent. (Stowell v. Tucker, 7 Idaho 312, 62 P. 1033; Feeney v. Chester, 7 Idaho 324, 63 P. 192; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Briggs, 27 Idaho 84, 147 P. 75; Jackson v. Indian Creek Irr Co., 16 Idaho 430, 437, 101 P. 814.)

The formation of the district by the stockholders of the old irrigation company simply amounts to a reorganization of the latter. Such reorganization could not affect the contract liabilities of the old company and the district is bound by them. (Seymour v. Boise Ry. Co., 24 Idaho 7, 132 P. 427.)

"A corporation, whether public or private, that purchases water rights, ditches, and a canal system, must necessarily take them subject to all the duties and burdens of which it had notice existed against the grantor. " (Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 218, 101 P. 81.)

W. F. McNaughton and Edward H. Berg, for Respondent.

The plaintiff, or his predecessors in interest have had their day in court, and could not collaterally attack the proceedings had in the matter of the organization of the irrigation district confirmed by the district court. (Knowles v. New Sweden Irr. Dist. (on rehearing), 16 Idaho 235, 101 P. 87.)

RICE, J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, J., concur.

OPINION

RICE, J.

The Avondale Irrigation District, respondent herein, was organized in the year 1912 and embraced lands in Kootenai county, including thirty-two and one-half acres belonging to the appellant. Thereafter the respondent contracted to purchase the irrigation works belonging to the Avondale Irrigation Company, a private corporation, for the purpose of supplying water for the irrigation of land within its boundaries. Proceedings were duly had, apportioning the cost of the works equally to all the lands in the district, including the lands belonging to appellant. An election was held, authorizing the board of directors to levy an assessment, in lieu of issuing bonds, for an amount sufficient to pay the entire purchase price of the irrigation works. Included in said election was an authorization to the board of directors of the district to levy an assessment of $ 2.50 per acre upon all the lands included in the district, to be used in maintaining the plant for the year 1913. Pursuant to the authority so granted, the said assessments were duly levied. The appellant failed to pay either of the assessments levied against his tract of land, and in due time the land was advertised for sale for such delinquent assessments according to law. Appellant brought this action for the purpose of enjoining respondent from selling said lands in accordance with the notice of sale.

Appellant contends that in consideration of a right of way for a pipe-line granted by his predecessor in interest, an oral agreement was made to the effect that water should be furnished for his said lands free of any annual maintenance charge; that respondent acquired its works subject to all the terms, conditions and provisions in any and all deed or deeds, contract or contracts and obligations therein or thereunder and existing by reason thereof or thereby.

It appears that the Avondale Irrigation Company, from whom the district acquired its works, agreed to and with the respondent as follows: "Now therefore the second party [respondent herein] has this day executed a promissory note for $ 26,912.50 in favor of the first party [Avondale Irrigation Co.] and first party hereby accepts said note of the second party in full payment of said irrigation system and works, and sells and assigns to second party all of said plant and works and agrees with second party that it will accept in payment thereof orders by the stockholders for their distributive part thereof, to wit, orders from the stockholders to the amount of $ 25.00 for each share of stock held by them, provided the said stockholders are not in arrears for maintenance charges and said orders are certified...