Hurlebaus v. American Falls Reservoir Dist.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 5367 |
| Citation | 49 Idaho 158,286 P. 598 |
| Parties | HARVEY W. HURLEBAUS, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT, an Irrigation District Organized and Existing Under and by Virtue of the Laws of the State of Idaho, and R. E. SHEPHERD, H. K. WILEY, A. F. MCCLOUD, A. A. DAVIS, W. H. SPENCE, J. H. BARKER and F. E. SAYRE, Directors of Said Irrigation District, Appellants and Cross-Respondents |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
WATERS AND WATERCOURSES-IRRIGATION DISTRICTS-COLLECTION AND CUSTODY OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT FUNDS - OFFICIAL BONDS OF STATE AND COUNTY TREASURER-SCOPE OF.
1. Under Const., art. 4, sec. 1, C. S., secs. 157, 177, 430, 433, fixing duties of state treasurer, and under Laws 1923 chap. 178, describing official duties of state treasurer with regard to money coming into his hands from irrigation district assessments after adoption of resolution by district's board of directors and consent by county commissioners of irrigation district, providing for collection of district assessments, state assumes complete control, leaving district officials no control over assessments levied on account of interest, principal and safety fund for district bonds or contracts with United States, which funds pass completely to state treasurer though district officials retained control over money collected for operation and maintenance purposes.
2. Under Laws 1923, chap. 178, prescribing duties of state treasurer with regard to money coming into his hands from irrigation district assessments, provision that state treasurer shall act as treasurer of district to receive funds in payment of district's bonds and United States contract obligations does not make treasurer's acts in such regard any less his official duties, but treasurer, as custodian of district's funds, acts in capacity of state treasurer and performs official duties of that office in manner provided for district treasurer.
3. In absence of statute, where an added duty of official nature is lawfully imposed on an official and no additional bond is provided, conditions of official bond, given thereafter cover added duties.
4. Under Laws 1923, chap. 178, imposing duties on state treasurer to receive and disburse funds of irrigation district in payment of district's bonds and United States contract obligations, such duties are official acts as contemplated by C. S., secs. 157, 177, 424, 430, 433 relating to official bonds which in absence of legislative act requiring special bonds are guaranteed by state treasurer's official bond, and hence expenditure of money to provide additional bond for state treasurer was unlawful, and directors of district should be restrained from making such expenditure.
5. Under C. S., sec. 3562, providing that county treasurer must receive all moneys by law directed to be paid to him, money coming into county treasurer's hands pursuant to Laws 1923, chap. 178, providing for collection of funds of irrigation district by county official, are protected by treasurer's official bond, under C. S., secs. 424, 430, 433, and hence expenditure by district of money to procure additional bond to protect funds in hands of county treasurer would be unlawful.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, for Twin Falls County. Hon. William A. Babcock, Judge.
Action for injunction to restrain the board of directors of the American Falls Reservoir District from procuring additional bonds for state and county officers receiving funds of the district pursuant to chap. 178, Laws of 1923. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Judgment reversed in part, with directions and affirmed in part. Costs to respondent Hurlebaus.
Bothwell & Chapman, for Appellants and Cross-respondents.
Where a separate bond is required of a treasurer for the faithful performance by him of his duties in connection with a particular fund entrusted to his custody, his general treasurer's bond does not include the particular or special fund entrusted to his custody. (Columbia County v. Massie, 31 Ore. 292, 48 P. 694; Broad v. City of Paris, 66 Tex. 119, 18 S.W. 342; Board of Commrs. of Swift County v. Knudson, 71 Minn. 461, 74 N.W. 158; People v. Burkhart, 76 Cal. 606, 18 P. 776; State v. Hall, (Miss.) 8 So. 464; County of Redwood v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45, 8 N.W. 907; (C. S., chap. 175, title XXXIII; chap. 178, 1923 Sess. Laws; C. S., secs. 420, 424, 3562, 4329.)
The official bond of an officer is sufficient and an additional bond is not necessary only in the event the duties imposed upon the officer are merely added duties and a separate office is not created, and whether or not a separate office has been created must be determined from the language of the acts of the legislature. (Town of Redwood City v. Grimmenstein, 68 Cal. 512, 9 P. 560; People v. Love, 25 Cal. 520; City of Oakland v. Snow, 145 Cal. 419, 78 P. 1060.)
Assessments of irrigation districts collected by county officers and turned over to the state treasurer are not moneys belonging to the state of Idaho. An irrigation district is a quasi-public corporation and holds its property in a proprietary capacity. (City of Nampa v. Nampa etc. Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905.)
Where a separate bond is required of a treasurer for the faithful performance by him of his duties in connection with a particular fund entrusted to his custody, his general treasurer's bond does not include the particular or special fund entrusted to his custody. (1923 Sess. Laws, chap. 178; C. S., sec. 4329; County of Redwood v. Tower, supra; State v. Hall, (Miss.) 8 So. 464; Broad v. City of Paris, 66 Tex. 119, 18 S.W. 342; Board of Commrs. of Swift County v. Knudson, 71 Minn. 461, 74 N.W. 158.)
Walters, Parry & Thoman, for Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
The official bond of an officer will cover any duties imposed upon him by statute even though such duties are of a different nature from those before imposed. (Town of Redwood City v. Grimmenstein, 68 Cal. 512, 9 P. 560; People v. Love, 25 Cal. 520; City of Oakland v. Snow, 145 Cal. 419, 78 P. 1060.)
The official bond of the treasurer of the state of Idaho covers any and all moneys in his hands which are the property of the appellant district. (State v. Dahl, 150 Wis. 73, 135 N.W. 474.)
Funds belonging to the irrigation district which are collected by a county treasurer come to him as such treasurer and are covered by his official bond. (Washington County v. Weiser Nat. Bank, 43 Idaho 600, 255 P. 310.)
This is an action by Harvey W. Hurlebaus against the American Falls Reservoir District and its directors to restrain the district and its directors from procuring official bonds for others than its own officers, and for restraining them from paying out moneys of the district to protect moneys in the hands of county treasurers, belonging to the district and received by the county treasurers under the laws of the state, also to restrain the district and its board of directors from paying out any moneys of the district for the purpose of paying premiums on bonds of the state treasurer for the protection of funds collected by the county treasurers upon the district's assessments which, by the laws of the state, the state treasurer is required to receive from the county treasurers of the several counties in which lands of the district are located, and disburse it in the payment of interest and principal upon the irrigation district's bonds and obligations to the United States.
The questions presented here are purely questions of law. The complaint upon which the action is founded alleges the due organization of the district; that the district has issued and sold its bonds in the amount of $ 2,584,000, for construction purposes; and alleges that by resolution of the district board of directors, with the consent of the boards of county commissioners of the several counties in which the district lies, the district has provided for the collection of its assessments by the county officers with other taxes. The complaint states that such assessments have heretofore been collected and are being collected with other taxes by the tax collectors of the counties in which the lands assessed by the district are located; that said collection is being made under the authority of chap. 178, Sess. Laws 1923.
The complaint also states that all certificates required of the district under the statute have been filed with the county auditors of the different counties. The said certificates show that for the current year the amount to be collected on account of said bond issue is $ 172,362, and for operation and maintenance the sum of $ 16,000. The complaint also states that the county officials of the respective counties in which the lands of the district lie have heretofore paid to the treasurer of the state of Idaho, in accordance with chap. 178, Sess. Laws 1923, the sums collected by them for said district on account of principal and interest on its bonds, and that the state treasurer now has in his hands, unexpended funds so collected and paid unto him as such treasurer, approximately $ 200,000.
The allegations of the complaint are full and ample, and present the facts of the whole case. The defense relies entirely upon its demurrer. The district court in passing upon the issues of law held that the funds of the district, while in the hands of the county treasurers, were and are fully protected by the official bonds of such county treasurers, and the acts of the board of directors in authorizing expenditure of money for the procurement of additional bonds for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial