Percival v. Cowychee & Wide Hollow Irrigation Dist.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1896
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PERCIVAL ET AL. v. COWYCHEE & WIDE HOLLOW IRRIGATION DIST. ET AL.

46 P. 1035

15 Wash. 480

PERCIVAL ET AL. v. COWYCHEE & WIDE HOLLOW IRRIGATION DIST. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 11, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Yakima county; H. B. Rigg, Judge pro tem.

Action by A. Percival and others against the Cowychee & Wide Hollow Irrigation District and another to enjoin levy of a tax. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. J Snively, Fred Miller, Reavis & Englehart, and Whitson &amp Parker, for appellants.

Frank H. Rudkin, for respondents.

HOYT C.J.

The only authority for the levy of the tax the collection of which was in controversy in this action was the provision of the act of March 22, 1895, which provided that "Whenever the board of directors of any district heretofore formed under this act shall have attempted to incur any indebtedness prior to this amendment going into effect, and when the only ground of the invalidity of such indebtedness is that the board of directors was not authorized to incur such indebtedness so contracted by said board, such indebtedness is hereby declared valid and binding upon said district, and the said directors are authorized to make an assessment of the property in said district as provided by this act as amended and to levy a tax upon said property as other levies are required to be made to pay such debts; provided, such indebtedness shall not exceed the sum of $5000." If this provision was in force, it was sufficient to authorize the levy in question but it is claimed that it is void, for the reason that it is not within the title of the act, and hence in violation of section 19 of article 2 of the constitution. The title of the act in which the provision is contained is in the following language: "An act to amend an act providing for the organization and government of irrigation districts and the sale of bonds arising therefrom, and declaring an emergency, the same being sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 59 and 70, approved March 20th, 1890, and declaring an emergency." The wording of this title is such as to make it difficult to determine the exact title of the act of which it was amendatory. It was in the following language: "An act providing for the organization and government of irrigating districts and the sale of bonds arising therefrom, and declaring an emergency." It will appear from a comparison of the two titles that there is no language used in the one to the amendatory act which in any manner extends the title to the original act. The latter act is simply amendatory of the former one, and the subject-matter embraced in the title is the same. Hence the question presented for decision is as to whether or not a title which shows nothing more than that the act is to provide for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and the sale of bonds arising therefrom, is broad enough to warrant the enactment thereunder of a provision for the validating of the indebtedness of a district which might have been organized thereunder, and the levying of a tax to pay the same. That the provision in the constitution in question should be reasonably construed, and legislation sustained which fairly comes within the subject-matter embraced in the title, has been frequently held by this court. See Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267, 28 P. 520; In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. 382, 25 P. 465. And such we believe to be the tendency of the decisions of all of the courts. But it will not do to sustain legislation which is so foreign to the...