Northwestern Improvement Co. v. John Day Irr. Dist.
Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
Docket Number | 8583. |
Citation | 286 F. 294 |
Parties | NORTHWESTERN IMPROVEMENT CO. v. JOHN DAY IRR. DIST. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Geo. F Reid, of Seattle, Wash., J. W. Quick, of Tacoma, Wash., L. B Da Ponte, of Seattle, Wash., and C. A. Murray, of Tacoma Wash., and Carey & Kerr, C. A. hart, and Robert Kuykendall all of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.
C. H. Finn, of La Grande, Or., and F. A. McMenamin, of Hepner, Or., for defendant Irrigation Dist.
Willis Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John K. Kollock, of Portland, Or., for defendant Morrow county.
I shall state my conclusions after a careful examination of the questions involved, and without elaboration. The suit is by the owner of some 6,000 acres of irrigable land within the John Day irrigation district to enjoin and restrain the collection of a tax of 50 cents an acre assessed against said lands and against other irrigable land within the district, to pay for operation and the costs of plans and surveys. The district was regularly organized under the laws of Oregon (chapter 357, Laws of 1917), and embraces about 234,000 acres of irrigable land. The assessment in question was made under section 24 of said law, which, so far as material here, provides that:
It is alleged in the bill that the estimated cost of the proposed irrigation system is $150 for each irrigable acre in the district; that such lands vary greatly in quality and location and the benefits to be derived from irrigation; that about 1,200 acres of plaintiff's land will not be benefited in excess of $50 to $100 an acre and the remainder from $30 to $50 per acre. It is claimed, therefore, that the law, in providing the method and manner of apportioning the tax, is unconstitutional and void because, first, it is in violation of the Constitution of Oregon, which provides that the Legislative Assembly shall, and the people through the initiative may, provide by law for uniform rates of assessment and taxation; and second, that it deprives the plaintiff of its property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The courts of the state have in more than one instance declared the law valid, although the precise...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern P. Ry. Co. v. John Day Irr. Dist.
... ... value of the benefits to that lot. The whole cost of the ... improvement is distributed in proportion to area, and a ... particular area might receive no benefits at all, at least if ... its present and ... federal questions here involved were determined by the ... district court of the United States in the case of ... Northwestern Improvement Co. v. John [106 Or. 155] ... Day Irrigation District, 286 F. 294, decided in ... February, 1922. In the decision of that ... ...
-
Booth v. Groves
... ... 2 and 5, but is a special assessment for improvement ... purposes, and can be justified, if at all, only as ... Dwiggins, 83 ... Ind. 473; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 ... U.S. 701, 4 S.Ct. 663, 28 L.Ed. 569; ... 379, 45 S.Ct. 136, 69 ... L.Ed. 142; Northwestern Imp. Co. v. John Day Irr ... Dist., 286 F. 294; Kramer v ... ...
-
In re Harper Irr. Dist.
... ... benefited by the contemplated improvement and subjected to ... assessments for the cost of constructing and maintaining the ... Company. [108 Or. 614] Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v ... John Day Irr. Dist. (Or.) 211 P. 781 ... The ... statute in its application to ... Goodrich v. Detroit, 184 U.S. 432, 22 S.Ct. 397, 46 ... L.Ed. 627; Northwestern Improvement Co. v. John Day Irr ... Dist. (D. C.) 286 F. 294; Brookes v. City of ... ...
- In re Goldenberg & Halbert