Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District v. Gilmore

• Decision Date: 06 July 1933
• Docket Number: 6002
• Citation: 23 P.2d 720,53 Idaho 377
• Parties: LEWISTON ORCHARDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. MARY E. GILMORE, Treasurer and Tax Collector of Nez Perce County, Idaho, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

23 P.2d 720

53 Idaho 377

LEWISTON ORCHARDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. MARY E. GILMORE, Treasurer and Tax Collector of Nez Perce County, Idaho, Respondent

No. 6002

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 6, 1933

TAXATION-EXEMPTIONS-IRRIGATION DISTRICTS.

1. Irrigation district is public corporation having incidental municipal powers necessary to internal management and proper conduct of business.

2. Grant of tax exemption is never presumed.

3. Statutes and constitutional provisions relating to tax exemptions should be strictly construed and any doubt resolved against exemption (Const. art. 7, sec. 4).

4. Term "municipal corporations" in constitutional provision exempting towns, cities and other "municipal corporations" from taxation, held confined to other municipal corporations of same kind, such as villages (Const., art. 7, sec. 4).

5. Land acquired by irrigation district for nonpayment of delinquent asessments held not exempt, as property of "municipal corporation," from general taxation while owned by district (Const., art. 7, sec. 4).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, for Nez Perce County. Hon. Miles S. Johnson, Judge.

Action to enjoin collection of taxes. Judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

John W Cramer, for Appellant.

An irrigation district is a municipal corporation within the meaning of the words "other municipal corporation" as that term is used in the constitutional provision for exemption from taxes. (Sec. 4, art. 7, Const.; sec. 6, art 7, Const.; secs. 3, 4, art. 12, Const.; Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 578, 102 P. 904; Gem Irr. Dist. v. Van Deusen, 31 Idaho 779, 176 P 887.

Ray E. Durham and Lincoln E. Shropshire, for Respondent.

"And other municipal corporations," as used in section 4 of article 7 of our Constitution, refers to true municipal corporations under the doctrines of ejusdem generis. (36 Cyc. 1119; 12 C. J. 707.)

Every claim for exemption from taxation should be denied unless exemption is granted so clearly as to leave no room for any fair doubt. (Kootenai County v. Seven-Seven Co., 32 Idaho 301, 182 P. 529; 4 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., sec. 1401; Hope Min. Co. v. Kennon, 3 Mont. 35; Cruse v. Fischl, 55 Mont. 258, 263, 175 P. 878.)

BUDGE, C. J. Givens, Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, C. J.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not land acquired by an irrigation district for nonpayment of delinquent assessments levied by said district is exempt from general taxation under the provisions of Const., art. 7, sec. 4, while owned by it. That constitutional provision reads as follows:

"The property of the United States, the state, counties, towns, cities and other municipal corporations and public libraries shall be exempt from taxation."

It is appellant's contention that an irrigation district is a public quasi-municipal corporation and as such included within the classification of "other municipal corporations" as used in said constitutional provision.

In Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway Dist., 42 Idaho 738, 747, 248 P. 456, 457, 49 A. L. R. 1057, this court classified counties, cities and towns as follows:

"Counties may be said to be true public corporations. They are local organizations, which for the purpose of civil administration are invested with a few functions characteristic of a corporate existence. They are legal political subdivisions of the state, created or superimposed by the sovereign power of the state of its own sovereign will, without any particular solicitation or consent of the people within the territory affected." (Citing authorities.)

"Cities, towns and villages may be classified as true municipal corporations, voluntarily organized under the general law at the request and with the concurrent consent of their members, and in addition to the exercise of the functions of self-government, transact matters of a quasi-private or business character not governmental in their nature but rather proprietary or for the acquisition of private gain for the municipality and its citizens." (Citing authorities.)

Many definitions and classifications of irrigation districts have been given and made by this court for the purpose of construing other constitutional and statutory provisions, but it may be conceded that in none of these cases have they been held to be true municipal corporations. They have been held to possess certain attributes common to both political subdivisions of the state, such as counties, and to true municipal corporations, such as cities and towns, thus bringing them, as to such attributes, within the meaning of certain statutory and constitutional provisions.

In Stephenson v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 49 Idaho 189, 288 P. 421, 69 A. L. R. 1225, it was held that notwithstanding an irrigation district is a quasi-public corporation and possesses some governmental powers and exercises some governmental functions, the construction and operation of irrigation canals and ditches are proprietary rather than governmental functions. The court said:

"This court had frequently and variously defined an irrigation district: 'A quasi-public corporation,' Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905; 'a quasi-municipal corporation,' Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1218, 136 P. 618. . . ."

"'A municipal corporation' (Gem Irr. Dist. v. Van Deusen, 31 Idaho 779, 176 P. 887; Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946).

"'A quasi-public or municipal corporation.' (Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., 37 Idaho 300, at 308, 216 P. 250.)

"The definition most enlightening with regard to the question we are here considering, is found in City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, at 787, 115 P. 979, 982, as follows:

"'An irrigation district is a public quasi corporation, organized, however, to conduct a business for the private benefit of the owners of lands within its limits. (They are the members of the corporation, control its affairs, and they alone are benefited by its operations.) It is, in the administration of its business, the owner of its system in a proprietary rather than a public capacity, and must assume and bear the burdens of proprietary ownership.'

"It is apparent from the above that this court has classified an irrigation district as more in the class of municipal corporations, than in the class of counties."

In Indian Cove Irr. Dist. v. Prideaux, 25 Idaho 112, 123, 136 P. 618, Ann. Cas. 1916A 1218, it was said:

"It is settled law that irrigation districts are public corporations, although not strictly municipal in the sense of exercising governmental functions other than those connected with raising revenue to defray the expense of constructing and operating irrigation systems and the conduct of the business of the corporation. (Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; In re Bonds of Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 28 P. 272, 675, 27 Am. St. 106, 14 L. R. A. 755.)"

This court also said in Yaden v. Gem. Irr. Dist., 37 Idaho 300, 308, 216 P. 250, 252:

"Irrigation districts are creatures of the statutes. They are quasi-public or municipal corporations, and as such have only such power as is given to them by statute, or such as is necessarily implied." (Citing authorities.)

"Under the provisions of C. S., sec. 4350 (now I. C. A., sec. 42-311) the legal title to all property acquired by the district by operation of law vests immediately in the district and is held in trust for, dedicated to and set apart to the use and purposes provided by law. Under the provisions of C. S., secs. 4346 and 4355 (now I. C. A., secs. 42-304 and 42-317) the power of the directors or other officers of an irrigation district is limited and any act done in excess of the express or implied provisions of the statute by such directors or other officers is ultra vires. . . . The land owners within the district are obligated to the extent of the cost of maintenance of the system and for the payment of the same. The appropriation and diversion of waters by the district, through its officers, or the purchase of a system constructed in whole or in part by its funds, becomes the property of the district and is held in trust for the land owners within it. . . . The ultimate purpose of a district's organization, under the provisions of the statutes of this state, is the improvement, by irrigation, of lands within the district."

In Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 339, 130 P. 381, it is said:

". . . . the irrigation district is a quasi-municipal corporation organized for the specific purpose of providing ways and means of irrigating lands within the district and maintaining an irrigation system for that purpose. (Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Merchants Nat. Bank v. Escondido Irr. Dist., 144 Cal. 329...