In re Walker River Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1921
• Docket Number: 2470.
• Citation: 195 P. 327,44 Nev. 321
• Parties: IN RE WALKER RIVER IRR. DIST. v. WALKER RIVER IRR. DIST. HENDRICH
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

195 P. 327

44 Nev. 321

IN RE WALKER RIVER IRR. DIST.

HENDRICH v. WALKER RIVER IRR. DIST.

No. 2470.

Supreme Court of Nevada

February 7, 1921

Appeal from District Court, Lyon County; T. C. Hart, Judge.

The board of directors of the Walker River Irrigation District procured a judgment approving and confirming the district's organization proceedings, and subsequently procured a judgment confirming steps taken with respect to apportionment of benefits, and from both of these judgments Peter Hendrich, who had not appeared in either proceeding appeals. Affirmed.

Coleman J., dissenting.

Robert L. Waggoner and Fannie McK. Waggoner, both of Yerington, for appellant.

Hoyt Norcross, Thatcher, Woodburn & Henley, of Reno, for respondent.

SANDERS C.J.

This proceeding was instituted in the district court of Lyon county under sections 19 and 20 of the Nevada Irrigation District Act (St. 1919, c. 64), to secure a confirmation of the organization of the Walker River irrigation district, and the proceedings had in connection therewith for the issuance of $918,500 of its bonds.

The board of directors of the district filed with the clerk of said court a petition for confirmation, in due form, and thereafter the court fixed a day for the hearing of the petition, and ordered notice to be given and published for the time and in the manner prescribed by the act; and in pursuance to said order notice, in proper form, was given and published. At the time appointed, no person interested answered the petition or interposed any objection thereto whatsoever. Thereupon the court, upon evidence oral and documentary, filed its finding of facts and conclusions of law, and thereafter, to wit, on the 9th day of December, 1919, entered its judgment approving and confirming all of the proceedings for the organization of the district, and for the issuance of $918,500 of bonds of said district, and approved and confirmed all proceedings sought to be confirmed, as set out in the petition.

Thereafter said board of directors filed a petition, in due form, with the clerk of said court, in effect praying for the confirmation of all of the proceedings had in connection with the apportionment of benefits to each subdivision or tract of land, with a list containing a complete description of each subdivision or tract of land in the district, together with the amount and rate per acre of such apportionment and the name of the owner thereof, as provided by the act. Thereupon the court fixed a day for the hearing of the petition and ordered notice to be given and published for the time and place of hearing. No person interested, at or before the time fixed, appeared, and thereafter, on, to wit, the 25th day of June, 1920, the court rendered a judgment ratifying, approving, and confirming each and all of the steps taken and had with respect to said apportionment of benefits, and adjudged the specified and named amounts of benefits so apportioned to each subdivision or tract of land to be regular, legal, and valid.

The appellant appeals to this court from both judgments. The record upon his appeal consists of the petitions and one exhibit purporting to be the apportionment of benefits charged against appellant's lands within the district; the finding of facts and conclusions of law and the respective judgments.

The appellant did not appear in either of the confirmation proceedings above referred to, but has filed in this court an assignment of errors that includes and covers an attack upon the constitutionality of the Nevada Irrigation District Act, the jurisdiction, power, and authority of the district court of Lyon county to examine, hear, and determine the subject involved in said judgments, and the legality and validity of the proceedings had in connection with the organization of the district, and insists that the judgments are absolutely null and void.

If the judgments rendered be judicial decisions, possessing the scope, effect, dignity, and efficacy of the usual and ordinary judgments of courts of general jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that the appellant, by his failure to appear or file an answer in the confirmation proceedings, is estopped from questioning the judgments, and is in no position to draw from this court on appeal therefrom an expression of opinion upon questions of fact involving the regularity, validity, and legality of the proceedings had in the court below to secure a confirmation of all the proceedings settled by the judgments.

His failure to answer the petition is deemed an admission on his part of the material allegations in the petition. Section 19.

The effect of the judgment as to the proper compliance with the provisions of the act is conclusive upon landowners within the district, whether they appear or do not appear at the confirmation proceedings. 3 Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights, § 1421.

Since it appears affirmatively from the record that appellant has a substantial interest in and is affected by the act, and the subject of its constitutionality is of grave public importance, we feel that those interested in the district and intended purchasers of its bonds should have the advantage of an authoritative decision in advance upon the legality of the organization of the district and all other proceedings which may affect the legality or validity of its bonds. We shall therefore state our conclusions reached upon the one question, to wit: Is the Nevada Irrigation District Act constitutional? Stats. 1919, p. 84.

At the threshold of the subject, we are confronted with the proposition that the confirmation provisions contained in the act (sections 19 and 20) are violative of section 6, art. 6, of the Constitution of this state, in that it attempts to confer upon district courts jurisdiction not within or contemplated by said section.

Our conclusion upon this proposition is that the confirmation proceeding, as prescribed by said sections, is clearly in the nature of an action in rem; the object being to determine the legal status of the district and its power to issue valid bonds. 3 Kinney on Irr., § 1420. The confirmatory procedure neither limits nor extends the original jurisdiction of district courts, as declared and prescribed by the Constitution, and is not violative of its letter or spirit.

It is further contended that sections 19 and 20 of the act are unconstitutional, for the reason that said sections are in conflict with that part of the Constitution of Nevada (section 20, art. 4) which provides:

"The Legislature shall not pass local or special laws * * * regulating the practice of courts of justice."

If we clearly interpret the position taken by counsel for appellant, it is their contention that the particular provision is a special privilege that is granted to no other public corporation, individual, or association, and is therefore special legislation within the meaning of section 20, art. 4, of the Constitution. We are not in accord with this position. The sections are general in their application, and were enacted for the purpose of providing for the organization of irrigation districts throughout the state for the reclamation of our arid lands, and the Legislature had in view the summary proceedings provided for in the sections for the express purpose of simplifying the proceedings in the organization of irrigation districts, and the issuance of its bonds, "which was a very wise public policy of a general and not a special nature." Emmett Irr. Dist. v. Shane, 19 Idaho, 332, 113 P. 444.

If the act be constitutional, we are satisfied of the lower court's jurisdiction, power, and authority to render the decrees complained of.

We shall now consider the further attacks made upon the constitutionality of the act, which for convenience may be arranged as follows:

(1) The title of the act embraces more than one subject, and matter properly connected therewith. Section 17, art. 4, Constitution.

(2) The act is violative of the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The act is violative of sections 1 and 6 of article 2 of the Constitution of this state.

As preliminary to the discussion of these questions, we may remark that, where the constitutionality of district irrigation laws have been attacked upon the grounds stated, they are generally upheld as being constitutional and valid.

The Legislature is presumed to have knowledge of the state of the law upon the subject upon which it legislates. Clover Valley L. & S. Co. v. Lamb, 43 Nev. 375, 187 P. 723.

It must also be understood that, where the Legislature of one state adopts the statute of another, the act of adoption raises the presumption that the Legislature of the adopting state enacted the statute in the light of the construction that had been placed upon it in the parent state. O'Brien v. Commissioners, 41 Nev. 90, 167 P. 1007; Ormsby Co. v. Kearney, 37 Nev. 371, 142 P. 803.

The history of irrigation district laws in Nevada begins with the statute of 1891, p. 106, and ends with the act under consideration. The substantive parts of the parent act are modeled upon the irrigation district law of California, commonly known as the "Wright Law" (St. 1887, p. 29). The administrative features of the present act include and cover provisions embodied in irrigation district laws of the arid land states that have received a settled construction, principally the laws of Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The act being an entirely new act, it is fair to presume that its administrative parts were incorporated as being the latest authoritative expression of the judicial mind, which were presumptively within the contemplation of the Legislature.

Counsel have labored...