Reinhart v. Canyon County

• Decision Date: 15 July 1912
• Citation: 125 P. 791,22 Idaho 348
• Parties: OTTO G. REINHART et al., Respondents, v. CANYON COUNTY et al., Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

125 P. 791

22 Idaho 348

OTTO G. REINHART et al., Respondents, v. CANYON COUNTY et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 15, 1912

HIGHWAYS-BRIDGE BONDS-TAX LEVY-HIGHWAY DISTRICT LAW-CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES-HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-POWERS OF.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Sec 15 of the highway district law (Sess. Laws 1911, p. 121) provides that the highway commissioners in a highway district shall constitute the highway board and shall have, except as provided in sec. 54 of said act, exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways within the district.

2. Sec 17 of said act provides that in respect to all highways included within such district, the power and jurisdiction of the highway board shall have exclusive jurisdiction except as provided in sec. 64 of said act.

3. Sec 64 has reference to the powers of municipal corporations included within the boundaries of a highway district.

4. Sec 16 of said act is identical with sec. 887a of chap. 60 of the Laws of 1911 (Sess. Laws, p. 168), and said chapter amends the general road and bridge laws under which the county commissioners operated.

5. Sec. 1962 provides, among other things, that when the interests of the county require it, and the board of county commissioners deem it for the public good to bond the county for the construction or repair of roads or bridges and the indebtedness or liability of the county that may be created for the construction or repair of such roads or bridges exceeds the income or revenue of the county for that year, the board of county commissioners may issue bonds of the county as provided in sec. 1960, provided the issuance of such bonds is authorized by a vote of two-thirds of the qualified electors of the county.

6. Sec. 1963 provides, among other things, that the board must cause to be levied annually upon all of the taxable property of the county, in addition to other authorized taxes, a sufficient sum to pay the interest on all such bonds. Held, that the provisions of said sections construed together show that the legislature intended such bonds should be binding obligations upon all of the property in the county.

7. Sec. 37 of the highway district act provides that the county may levy a road tax for general road purposes on all the property within the county including the highway district therein, and said tax is apportioned by the provisions of said section.

8. Under sec. 42 of said highway district act, the provisions of secs. 37, 38, 40 and 41 of said act, except the first sentence of sec. 37, do not apply to any taxes levied, assessed or collected within any highway district to meet the payment of the bonds issued by the county or other political corporation within said county.

9. Sec. 65 of said highway district act, when construed by itself, has two purposes: First, to place in the highway district board the exclusive power to levy and apply the road, bridge and highway taxes within the district except in respect to general county taxes, the distribution of which taxes is provided for by sec. 37 of said act; and, second, to protect without change the method of levying taxes to pay bonds issued prior to the organization of the highway district, and from the language used in said sec. 65, considered in connection with sec. 37, the right of highway districts to levy and apply taxes within the district relates to general levies for road purposes and not to special levies made to meet the payment of bonds for the construction of bridges, issued by the county.

10. The board of county commissioners has the power to issue county bonds for bridges built in the county outside of a highway district and to levy taxes on the entire county for the payment of such bonds, provided it is determined that that portion of the county included in a highway district is benefited by the building of such bridges.

11. Sec. 16 of said highway district act, and sec. 887a, Rev. Codes, as amended by Sess. Laws 1911, p. 168, provide that in case the construction, maintenance, repair or improvement of any highway or portion thereof within a county and not included within a highway district would also be a benefit to such district, the highway board of the district and the board of county commissioners have power to contract each with the other for a division and apportionment of the cost of such construction, etc., and in case they fail to agree the proper action may be brought therefor in the district court.

12. In such a case the board of county commissioners has the power and authority to levy the tax upon all of the property within the county for the payment of such bonds and the interest thereon.

13. The failure of said boards to adjust said indebtedness would in no manner invalidate the bond issue, as the validity of the bonds does not depend upon such an adjustment.

14. The political subdivision of the state recognized by our constitution as a county is none the less a county because of the organization of a highway district therein.

15. Under the provisions of said highway district act the district may issue highway district bonds for certain highway purposes within such district, and the county may issue its bonds for bridge or other highway purposes where such improvement is a benefit to all parts of the county.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.

Action to restrain the county commissioners of Canyon county from issuing and negotiating certain bridge bonds in Canyon county. Judgment for plaintiffs. Judgment modified.

Judgment of the district court modified. Costs awarded to appellants.

J. A. Elston, R. B. Scatterday, and Richards & Haga, for Appellants.

A highway district is a public corporation and municipal agency within the county, and has only such powers as are conferred upon it by law. (State ex rel. Bulkley v. Williams, 68 Conn. 131, 35 A. 24, 421, 48 L. R. A. 465; Hettinger v. Good Road District No. 1, 19 Idaho 313, 113 P. 721.)

Under the provisions of sec. 13 of the act a highway district is a "body politic and corporate," and is merely a municipal organization or agency within the county, and exists only for the more convenient administration of the local government of the people. (In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 27 Am. St. 106, 28 P. 272, 675, 14 L. R. A. 755.)

So far as the provisions of chap. 55 are necessarily inconsistent with secs. 1962 and 1963, the provisions of the former are paramount and must prevail. (Matter of Murray Hill Bank, 153 N.Y. 211, 47 N.E. 298.)

A repeal by implication because of inconsistency or repugnancy would never be declared where a reasonable construction will harmonize the statutes alleged to be conflicting. (People ex rel. Woods v. Crissey, 91 N.Y. 616; Mark v. State, 97 N.Y. 572; Armbruster v. Wilson, 43 Hun, 261.)

Rice, Thompson & Buckner, and F. A. Hagelin, for Respondents.

Respondent contends that sections 1962 and 1963 have not been repealed, but still stand as a part of the statutes, and are applicable to those counties and portions of a county in which the governmental functions relating to highways have not been by law taken from the county and by operation of law vested in some other public corporation. (Heinssen v. State, 14 Colo. 228, 23 P. 995; Mernaugh v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla. 433, 27 So. 34.)

SULLIVAN, J. Stewart, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

This action was brought by the respondent, who is a qualified elector and taxpayer of Canyon county and a resident of the Nampa Highway District, to enjoin Canyon county and the board of county commissioners thereof from issuing and negotiating certain bridge bonds of said county, and enjoining the defendants from entering into a contract for the sale of such bonds for the construction of bridges across the Payette river in Canyon county.

The case was tried by the court upon substantially the following evidence or facts: On February 8, 1911, a petition was presented to the board of county commissioners of said county, signed by the required number of taxpayers of the road district in which such proposed bridges were to be constructed, petitioning for the construction of bridges across Payette river in said county at Fruitland, New Plymouth and Letha. Due and legal notice of the hearing of said petitions was given, and on March 14, 1911, the board met in regular session, and after hearing testimony as to the necessity therefor, found the construction of such bridges necessary. The county surveyor was directed to prepare proper plans and specifications for such bridges. Thereafter upon proper notice the board received bids for the construction of such bridges, and on June 20, 1911, accepted the bids of Forbes & Co. for the erection of such bridges, for the sums of $ 15,795, $ 15, 875 and $ 15,960, respectively, subject to a bond election. On August 5, 1911, the issuing of such bonds was submitted to the voters of the entire county. After canvassing the votes on August 9, 1911, the board found that the question of bonding the county had carried and that the board was authorized to issue and sell bonds of the county for the purpose of constructing said bridges, and caused notice to be published for the sale of said bonds. On the 7th of April, 1911, a petition was filed with the clerk of the board of county commissioners praying for the organization of the Nampa Highway District in accordance with chap. 55, Sess. Laws of 1911, p. 121. An election was held on April 29, 1911, pursuant to notice given, which resulted in favor of the organization of such highway district, and on May 8, 1911, the Nampa Highway District was declared duly organized and is now a...