Independent Highway District No. 2 of Ada County v. Ada County

• Decision Date: 16 August 1913
• Citation: Independent Highway District No. 2 of Ada County v. Ada County, 134 P. 542, 24 Idaho 416 (Idaho 1913)
• Parties: INDEPENDENT HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ADA COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. ADA COUNTY and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

134 P. 542

24 Idaho 416

INDEPENDENT HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ADA COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. ADA COUNTY and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 16, 1913

PROHIBITION-ROAD BOND ISSUE-BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-CALLING ELECTION-PURPOSE OF-NOTICE FOR-ROADS AND BRIDGES-CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

1. Where a board of county commissioners declares by resolution that in the opinion of the board it is for the best interests of the county and the public good to bond the county for $200,000 for the construction and repair of roads and bridges, and the notice calling the election recites such facts and proceeds as follows: "Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday the 25th day of June, 1913, an election shall be held according to law for the purpose of determining whether or not the said Ada County, State of Idaho, shall issue bonds in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars, the proceeds thereof to be used in the construction, building and repair of roads and bridges within said Ada County, State of Idaho," held, that such notice is sufficient under the statute, and that it was not necessary to specify particularly the roads or bridges that were to be constructed or repaired.

2. Sec 1962, Rev. Codes, authorizes the issuing of bonds by the county under certain conditions, and for the purpose of constructing and repairing roads and bridges.

3. Sec 1968, Rev. Codes, directs that if the question of bonding the county is submitted to the voters, the board shall cause notice of the intention to hold such election to be given and such notice shall recite, among other things, the purpose for which such election is to be held, and where the notice of said election directs that the same shall be held for the purpose of determining whether bonds in the sum named in the notice shall be issued and the proceeds used in the construction, building and repair of roads and bridges within the county, such notice is sufficient.

4. By such notice the electors are fully apprised that they are called upon to vote as to whether or not bonds should be issued in the sum mentioned in the notice, for the construction and repair of roads and bridges within the county.

5. Held, that it was not necessary to specify in such notice the particular roads or bridges that were to be constructed or repaired by the proceeds of the sale of such bonds.

6. The board of county commissioners under this law is given a large discretion in this matter, but the presumption is that they will do their duty and construct and repair roads and bridges in the county where they are most needed and beneficial to the people of the county.

7. If the electors in a county do not desire to vote bonds where the board is given such large discretion under the law, they are not compelled to do so.

8. Where the law authorizes the issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing and repairing roads and bridges, the statute does not mean merely the building of new roads, but it means the betterment of roads already in existence as well as the constructing of new roads and bridges, and for that purpose the bonds of the county may be issued if duly authorized by the vote of the taxpayers of the county.

9. Under the provisions of sec. 1962, Rev. Codes, bonds may be issued for the construction and repair of roads and bridges and a notice calling such election which states such purpose substantially in the language of the statute is sufficient.

10. It will not be presumed that the board will use the funds arising from the sale of such bonds for any other purpose than for constructing and repairing roads and bridges in said county, and if they should undertake to divert the funds to some other purpose, the taxpayer has his remedy.

11. Under the provisions of sec. 882b, the entire jurisdiction of building and repairing roads and bridges, outside of highway districts and such highways as are under the jurisdiction of the state highway commission, is given to the respective boards of county commissioners in the several counties of the state.

12. It was not necessary for the board of county commissioners to specify in said notice the amount of the proceeds of said bonds to be used for constructing and repairing bridges and the amount to be used for constructing or repairing roads.

13. Bridges are a part of the highways of the county.

14. The several parts of a road system are so related that when united they form in fact but one system and, for the purpose of submitting the question of voting such road bonds to the electors of a county, it was not necessary to indicate the amount to be used for bridges and the amount to be used for roads.

15. County roads are improvements in which the entire public is interested and benefited, although a particular individual may never use such road.

16. The county is the unit of taxation in the matter under consideration.

17. Under the provisions of sec. 15, art. 7, of the state constitution, the legislature must provide by law such a system of county finance as shall cause the business of the county to be conducted on a cash basis, and sec. 3, art. 18 provides, among other things, that said sec. 3 shall not be construed to apply to the ordinary expense authorized by the general laws of the state.

18. The issuance of the bonds in question is not prohibited by the provisions of said section, and even though the board of county commissioners may intend to illegally expend some of the proceeds of said bond issue, that does not make void the issuance of such bonds.

19. Where a systematic improvement of a road system of a county is undertaken, as in this case, and in the prosecution of that work roads and bridges are repaired and put in good condition, the expense thereof may be paid out of the proceeds of a bond issue.

20. Held, that the issuance of said bonds would not result in double taxation.

An original application for an alternative writ of prohibition to the board of county commissioners. Alternative writ quashed and permanent writ denied.

Alternative writ of prohibition set aside and quashed and a permanent writ of prohibition denied.

Harry S. Kessler, for Plaintiff.

The notice for calling for the election does not contain an adequate statement of the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued. (McMahon v. Board of Supervisors, 46 Cal. 214; State v. Carbon County, 38 Utah 563, 114 P. 522.)

Roads and bridges are clearly specified as separate objects for which bonds may be issued by sec. 1962, Rev. Codes, just as they are in other provisions of the statute, and the language of this court in the case of Ostrander v. City of Salmon, 20 Idaho 153, 117 P. 692, on page 162 of the Idaho Report, is applicable. (See, also, Jenkins v. Williams, 14 Cal.App. 89, 111 P. 116; Stern v. City of Fargo, 18 N.D. 289, 122 N.W. 403, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 665.)

The present contemplated bond issue is not authorized by constitution or statute.

In Fenton v. Board of Commissioners, 20 Idaho 392, 119 P. 41, this court held that the provisions of the statute directing the levy for a specific purpose are mandatory. And that there is a distinction between ordinary county expenses which must be met by annual levies and extraordinary expenses which can only be met by bond issues, has been several times pointed out by this court. (Bannock County v. Bunting, 4 Idaho 156, 37 P. 277; Dunbar v. Board of Commrs., 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409; Ball v. Bannock County, 5 Idaho 602, 51 P. 454; County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co., 5 Idaho 79, 47 P. 818; McNutt v. Lemhi County, 12 Idaho 63, 84 P. 1054.)

The proposed bonds, if issued, will result in double taxation. (Humbird Lumber Co. v. Kootenai County, 10 Idaho 490, 79 P. 396.)

R. L. Givens, Harry Keyser and E. P. Barnes, for Defendants.

The notice is in the exact language of the statute.

The people of Ada county were fully apprised by the entry in the minutes of the county commissioners and the notices published and posted, that they were called upon to vote as to whether or not bonds should be issued in the sum of $ 200,000 for the construction and repair of "roads and bridges" within the county, generally. (Potter v. Lainhart, 44 Fla. 647, 33 So. 251; Stone v. Gregory, 110 Ky. 492, 61 S.W. 1002; Weston v. Hancock County, 98 Miss. 800, 54 So. 307; Corker v. Village of Mountainhome, 20 Idaho 32, 37, 116 P. 108, and cases there cited.)

The word "purpose," as used in sec. 1962, Rev. Codes, and the general bond act, being art. 6, chapter 2, tit. 11, Rev. Codes, applies only to those purposes set forth in the statute, not the specific works of construction which may be carried on under one of these main purposes. We contend that throughout the act the word "purpose," is used generally to designate a class. (Shea v. Skagit County, 68 Wash. 233, 122 P. 1061; Law v. City and County of San Francisco, 144 Cal. 384, 77 P. 1014; Jenkins v. Williams, 14 Cal.App. 89, 111 P. 116.)

"The true criterion is, are the several parts of the project so related that united they form in fact but one round whole?" (Blaine v. Hamilton, 14 Wash. 353, 116 P. 1076, and cases cited therein; Morse v. Granite County, 44 Mont. 78, 119 P. 286; Gilbert v. Canyon County, 14 Idaho 420-449, 94 P. 1027.)

"A notice in substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient." (State ex rel. Whitmore v. Carbon County, 36 Utah 394, 104 P. 222; 15 Cyc. 232, 326.) The question of lack of benefit to highway district is considered fully in Reinhart v. Canyon County, 22 Idaho 351 125 P. 791; Van Pelt v. Bertilrud, 117 Minn. 50, 134 N.W. 227. County roads and bridges are undoubtedly improvements in which the entire public is interested and benefited, although the particular individual may never have...