Leney v. Twin Falls County

• Decision Date: 22 April 1925
• Citation: 40 Idaho 600,236 P. 531
• Parties: E. H. LENEY et al., Respondents, v. TWIN FALLS COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, and E. L. WARREN, Tax Collector of Said County, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

236 P. 531

40 Idaho 600

E. H. LENEY et al., Respondents, v. TWIN FALLS COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, and E. L. WARREN, Tax Collector of Said County, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 22, 1925

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. T. Bailey Lee, Judge.

Action to enjoin the issuance of tax deeds. Judgment for plaintiffs. Modified and affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents.

J. W Taylor and Bothwell & Chapman, for Appellants.

Respondents having done all that was required of them by the state and federal laws and the rules and regulations of the state to earn title to their lands, which facts are evidenced by the final certificates, were immediately vested with the equitable title to said lands, which were thereby subjected to taxation, irrespective of the fact that the naked legal title remained for a time in the United States. (C. S., secs 3096, 3097, 3099, 3101; Bothwell v. Bingham County, 24 Idaho 125, 132 P. 972, 237 U.S. 642, 35 S.Ct. 702, 59 L.Ed. 1157; Armstrong v. Jarron, 21 Idaho 747, 125 P. 170; Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1218, 136 P. 618; Cheney v. Minidoka County, 26 Idaho 471, 144 P. 343; Lewis v. Christopher, 30 Idaho 197, 163 P. 916; Bennett v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water Co., 27 Idaho 643, 150 P. 336; Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. Price County, 133 U.S. 496, 10 S.Ct. 341, 33 L.Ed. 687; Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Myers, 172 U.S. 589, 19 S.Ct. 276, 43 L.Ed. 564; Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Hemmenway, 117 Iowa 598, 91 N.W. 910; Johnson v. Crook County, 53 Ore. 329, 133 Am. St. 834, 100 P. 294; Mariner v. Oconto Land Co., 142 Wis. 531, 126 N.W. 34; State v. Itasca Lumber Co., 100 Minn. 355, 111 N.W. 276; Hussman v. Durham, 165 U.S. 144, 17 S.Ct. 253, 41 L.Ed. 664; Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 83 U.S. 603, 21 L.Ed. 373; Myers v. Northern P. Ry. Co., 83 F. 358, 28 C. C. A. 412; Davis v. Magouan, 109 Iowa 308, 80 N.W. 423; New Orleans P. Ry. Co. v. Kelley, 52 La. 1741, 28 So. 212; Danforth v. McCook County, 11 S.D. 258, 74 Am. St. 808, 76 N.W. 940; Wood v. McCombe, 37 Colo. 174, 119 Am. St. 269, 86 P. 319; Elder v. Wood, 208 U.S. 226, 28 S.Ct. 263, 52 L.Ed. 464; Cannon v. Hood River Irr. Dist., 79 Ore. 71, 154 P. 397; United States v. Canyon County (D. C.), 232 F. 985; 37 Cyc. 792, 866, 867, 868; 26 R. C. L. 96, 97.)

The fact that delay occurred in the issuance of patent from the United States to the state, and from the state to respondents, for said lands, during which time investigation was made by the state and federal government with a view to ascertaining the irrigable and patentable area of this Carey Act project, resulting in the issuance of patent being suspended for a time, in nowise affects the taxable status of respondents' lands after the issuance of final certificate. (Cheney v. Minidoka County, 26 Idaho 471, 144 P. 343; Herrick v. Sargent, 140 Iowa 590, 132 Am. St. 281, 117 N.W. 751; County of Polk v. Hunter, 42 Minn. 312, 44 N.W. 201; Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Myers, 172 U.S. 589, 19 S.Ct. 276, 43 L.Ed. 564; Haumesser v. Chehalis County, 76 Wash. 570, 136 P. 114; Flood v. Virnig, 79 Wash. 417, 140 P. 333.)

After completely earning the right to patent and being vested with the equitable title to these lands as evidenced by their final certificates transferring to respondents such equitable title and such beneficial interest and estate in said lands as could be sold, encumbered or passed on by inheritance, and after having been in the use and possession of said lands and in the full exercise and enjoyment of these rights, privileges and benefits for years subsequent to their receipt of final certificates, respondents cannot now impeach their title for the purpose of avoiding the payment of taxes. (Bothwell v. Bingham County, supra; Herrick v. Sargent, supra; Bishop v. O'Brien County, 144 Iowa 567, 123 N.W. 351; United States v. Canyon County, supra.)

O. C. Hall and T. K. Hackman, for Respondents.

The government issues patent to the state for the segregated land shown to have sufficient water to be reclaimed, and the state holds such title in trust for those who settled upon, cultivated and reclaimed the same.

Carey Act land is taxable when patent issues from the government to the state. (Bothwell v. Bingham County, 24 Idaho 125, 132 P. 972, 237 U.S. 642, 35 S.Ct. 702, 59 L.Ed. 1157.)

Whether or not the state has actually furnished an ample supply of water for reclamation of a particular tract in order to entitle it to patent is a question of fact to be determined by the department. (Twin Falls Salmon River etc. Co. v. Caldwell, 242 F. 177, 155 C. C. A. 17; State v. Twin Falls etc. Co., 30 Idaho 41, (78), 166 P. 220.)

TAYLOR, J. William A. Lee, C. J., and Givens, J., concur, BUDGE, J., Specially Concurring. Wm. E. Lee, J., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in the decision.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J.

This action was brought by Leney and some fifteen others to enjoin the issuance of tax deeds by appellant Warren, tax collector, to appellant Twin Falls county, for delinquent taxes levied and assessed for the year 1918. The cause was submitted to the district court upon a stipulation of facts.

It is stipulated that prior to April 30, 1908, the state entered into a contract with the Secretary of the Interior, under the Carey Act, for the reclamation of approximately 60,000 acres of land, which were segregated by the Department, and on April 30, 1908, made a contract with the Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Company for their irrigation and reclamation. In June, 1908, respondents, or their predecessors, entered into contracts with the corporation to purchase water rights for their respective lands, all included within that segregation, and have been in possession and control of the lands since that time, by reason of having filed thereon under the terms of the Carey Act and the laws of the state of Idaho. Prior to 1918, and while the project included 60,000 acres, respondents made proof of the reclamation, improvement and cultivation of the lands, and received final certificates from the state of Idaho. It was thereafter demonstrated that the source of water supply was not sufficient to make available enough water for the irrigation of all the lands under the said project. The state of Idaho made certain investigations, and determined, on or about March 30, 1918, that the project should be reduced to approximately 35,000 acres, and recommended to the Secretary of the Interior that patents be issued to all the lands embraced in such reduced area, and that patents not be issued to the lands excluded from the project. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Interior reduced the project to approximately 35,000 acres of irrigable land, and on January 13, 1921, patent from the United States issued to the state for the lands embraced in the reduced area. The lands of respondents are located within the reduced area, and before the reduction of the project there was not sufficient water allotted to them to irrigate them adequately for the successful growing of crops.

In the year 1918, and every year since, the premises filed on by respondents were assessed by Twin Falls county for taxation as real property, and such assessment extended upon its real property rolls as delinquent taxes against the property. The taxes assessed for the year 1918 are delinquent. The delinquency entries are owned by Twin Falls county, and the time of redemption from tax sale expired January 13, 1922. Judgment was entered enjoining the issuance of tax deeds on delinquent taxes for the year 1918 or any other year prior to 1921. This appeal is from that judgment.

The appellants assign as error that the findings and conclusions are not supported by the evidence, the law or the pleadings, and that the court erred in its conclusions that the final certificate issued by the state of Idaho to respondents did not vest the equitable title to said lands in respondents, and that respondents were entitled to an injunction against the issuance of a tax deed on account of taxes delinquent for the year 1918 or for any other year before 1921.

The court's conclusion that equitable title did not vest in the respondents is based upon a deduction drawn from the provisions of the Carey Act and the laws of Idaho passed to carry it into effect, and especially that after the land and water company was prepared to furnish sufficient water for the complete irrigation of the 35,000 acres, it became the duty of the company to notify the settlers to that effect, that within three years thereafter the settler would be required to appear before the Department of Reclamation and make final proof of reclamation, settlement and occupation, and that until these conditions were complied with, the final state certificate or patent could not issue legally.

The court was correct in its conclusion of law, from all the facts, that equitable title did not vest upon the issuance of the certificates. The facts with relation to the certificates, and the lack of proof of the completion of the project, show that title did not vest, but it was unnecessary to conclude that the certificates could not issue legally at the time they did. That point is not necessary to the decision herein. The state probably a very necessary party to such determination, was not before the court. The legality of the certificates, in and of themselves, was not a material issue, but only their legal effect under the facts stipulated. It is stipulated that the patents have since issued to the state, and while the settler did not receive an equitable title upon this final certificate, because the facts show that some of the things which it was necessary for him or ...