McDonald v. Pritzl

• Decision Date: 16 June 1939
• Docket Number: 6662
• Citation: 60 Idaho 354,93 P.2d 11
• Parties: S. H. MCDONALD, Appellant, v. CHARLES J. PRITZL, IRL BISHOP and MYRON WHITLEY, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

93 P.2d 11

60 Idaho 354

S. H. MCDONALD, Appellant, v. CHARLES J. PRITZL, IRL BISHOP and MYRON WHITLEY, Respondents

No. 6662

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 16, 1939

DRAINAGE DISTRICTS - ASSESSMENT FOR COSTS-ASSESSED BENEFITS-CONFIRMATION - ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS - LIABILITY OF LANDOWNER - MANDAMUS, WHEN ISSUED - BONDS-INTEREST-RIGHTS OF BONDHOLDERS.

1. A drainage district is a special improvement district of limited liability. (I. C. A., sec. 41-2501 et seq.)

2. The liability of each particular landowner in drainage district became fixed when original assessment for cost of construction was confirmed by the court, and assessment imposed became limit of his liability for construction costs and precluded additional assessment, in absence of further court order, for costs above original approved costs notwithstanding total assessment would allegedly be within the assessment of benefits as found by the court on confirmation. (I. C. A., secs. 41-2514, 41-2519, 41-2530, 41-2531, 41-2561 to 41-2563.)

3. Where assessments for construction in amount exceeding that confirmed by court were levied by drainage district, but due to delinquencies amount received did not equal amount approved, landowners could not be subjected to an additional assessment for the difference between amount collected and amount approved. (I. C. A., secs. 41-2514, 41-2519, 41-2530, 41-2531, 41-2561 to 41-2563.)

4. Where drainage district received par value for bonds in exchanging them for warrants and discounting thereof was between others, alleged fact that bonds were sold for less than par in violation of statute would not entitle bondholders to have levied an additional assessment above that confirmed by the court. (I. C. A., sec 41-2552.)

5. Mandamus will issue only where there is a clear right to the relief sought and a clear duty of performance resting on the one whom it is sought to compel to do the act.

6. Where collection of drainage district assessments could not be enforced as a matter of right, mandamus would not lie at instance of bondholder to compel additional assessment on equitable grounds based on fact that landowners had received benefit of additional construction costs, unless clear equitable right of recovery was shown.

7. Assessments by drainage district for costs in excess of amount approved by the court were voidable rather than void. (I. C. A., secs. 41-2508 to 41-2526, 42-110 to 42-213.)

8. Mandamus would not lie to compel assessment by drainage district for additional costs in excess of original amount confirmed by the court, where landowners were not afforded notice or hearing before additional construction was authorized, and where payment of additional principal and interest would be inequitable. (I. C. A., secs. 41-2508 to 41-2526, 42-110 to 42-213.)

9. Interest on bonds issued by drainage district to pay cost of construction does not come within limit of construction costs, and although nondelinquent landowners were not liable for interest beyond amount they would have had to pay up to the respective maturity dates of the bonds, the bondholders were entitled to that interest and levies could be made to pay therefor. (I. C. A., sec. 41-2558.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Gem County. Hon. A. O. Sutton, Judge.

Appellant sued in the district court, May 26, 1937, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent drainage district commissioners to levy assessments on district lands sufficient to pay principal and interest on certain bonds of said district held by appellant. Judgment for respondents. Affirmed as modified.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to appellants. Petition for rehearing denied.

Delana & Delana, for Appellant.

An irrigation or drainage district is a quasi-public corporation and the landowners of said district are members of the corporation and are acting primarily in a proprietary capacity for their private benefit for the drainage of their lands. (Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377 at 381 and 382, 23 P.2d 720.)

The landowners of a drainage district for all practical purposes sustain the relation to it that stockholders in a private corporation sustain to the corporation. (Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Barclay, 56 Idaho 13, 74 P.2d 916, 100 A L. R. 557.)

T. L. Martin, for Respondents.

A writ of mandate will not issue unless the party seeking it has a clear legal right to have the act done for which he seeks the aid of the writ, and it must be the clear legal duty of the officer to act. (Sec. 13-302, I. C. A.; Robinson et al. v. Enkling, 58 Idaho 24, 69 P.2d 603; Logan v. Carter, 49 Idaho 393, 288 P. 424; Brooks v. Edgington, 40 Idaho 432, 233 P. 514; State v. Malcom, 39 Idaho 185, 226 P. 1083.)

The assessment roll, as fixed and confirmed by the court is the maximum liability of the landowners for all costs, rights of way, construction, surveys, legal expense, damages, etc. Each tract, or legal subdivision, is assessed separately and the amount thus assessed becomes a lien. There is no municipal liability and no municipality to be rendered liable for the indebtedness. (Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 529, 530, 130 P. 785; Straus v. Ketchen, 54 Idaho 56, 74, 28 P.2d 824.)

GIVENS, J. Ailshie, C. J., Budge and Holden, JJ., and Winstead, D. J., concur. Morgan, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

--Assessments for $ 118,547 as costs of construction were confirmed, apportioned to the different tracts of land in respondent district upon its organization April 8, 1915, and the total benefits to all the lands of the district determined to be $ 440,869.11. A bond issue of $ 120,000 recited to cover the expenses and entire cost of construction and all proceedings under chapter 16, Idaho Session Laws 1913, page 58 (now sec. 41-2501, I. C. A. et seq.), was issued January 1, 1919. The court found on amply sustaining evidence that the total cost of construction between April, 1919, and February, 1921, was $ 144,242.61. Assessments to pay these costs of construction, by paying construction warrants and principal on the bond issue totaling 84 per cent of the assessment roll (i. e., of $ 118,547) which included redemption of 163 bonds or $ 81,500 thereof were proportionately assessed against the landowners between 1919 and 1934. Appellant, owner and holder of bonds Nos. 164 to 170 in the amount of $ 3,500, sues for himself and all other bondholders similarly situated, owning and holding bonds Nos. 171 to 220 inclusive, amounting to $ 25,000, all unpaid.

Appellant sought a writ of mandate to compel the commissioners of respondent district to levy assessments to pay principal and interest of these remaining bonds. The commissioners refused to do so on the ground the assessment of costs of $ 118,547, as first confirmed, was the limit of liability resting on the landowners; the additional cost not having been authorized by court order as provided and assertedly required in section 41-2531, I. C. A., ^[1] or section 41-2530, I. C. A., ^[2] passed in 1919, Idaho Session Laws, chapter 183, page 562, and the amendment of 1919 to section 58, chapter 168 of Title 32, Compiled Laws (chap. 16, sec. 23, Sess. Laws 1913, p. 73). These amendments are now contained in sections 41-2561, 41-2562, and 41-2563, I. C. A. ^[3]

The trial court considered correct respondents' theory that the assessed cost for construction as confirmed by the court was the limit of liability (in the absence of further court order), and entered judgment accordingly, denying the writ, hence this appeal.

The sole and ultimate question of law involved resolves around this conclusion of the trial court:

"III

"That the Commissioners of said District have no right or authority to make calls or assessments against the lands within said District for any or all of the above named purposes (construction and preliminary proceeding costs) in excess of 100 per cent of said assessment roll as confirmed by the Court," without court action. (Addition and italics ours.)

Appellant contends that as long as the total assessments for construction costs, though in excess of those first confirmed, are within the assessment of benefits as found by the court on confirmation (i. e., $ 440,869.11) the commissioners had authority to make such additional assessments without court order or notice to the landowners; and that if this theory is not correct, since all the money paid out by the district in construction costs was for the benefit of the landowners, equity justifies the assessments to repay the bondholders for the amount they contributed.

This court in Elliott v. McCrea, 23 Idaho 524, 130 P. 785, and Straus v. Ketchen, 54 Idaho 56, 28 P.2d 824, held drainage districts special improvement districts of limited liability, saying in Elliott v. McCrea, supra (p. 530), sustaining the constitutionality of the Drainage Act that:

" . . . . the assessment here authorized to be levied runs against each specific tract or parcel of land to be benefited, and the amount thereof is ascertained, determined and assessed in advance, so that every property owner can know just how much he is to pay and the bondholder can ascertain just the extent of the claim he has against each tract of land. In such case, there is no municipal liability and no municipality to be rendered liable for the payment of the indebtedness."

Clearly referring to the initial assessments for costs as those are all that have to be definitely found, it being necessary as to total benefits only that they exceed the cost of construction. (Secs. 41-2514, 41-2519, I. C. A.) Further in Straus v. Ketchen, supra, it is said:

"There is no merit in the contention made by the defendant that the property owners within...