Salter v. Nelson
Citation | 85 Utah 460,39 P.2d 1061 |
Decision Date | 08 January 1935 |
Docket Number | 5616 |
Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Parties | SALTER v. NELSON, County Treasurer |
Original proceeding by George A. Salter against Jens K Nelson, as county treasurer of Davis county and ex officio district treasurer of Bonneville Irrigation District, for an alternative writ of mandate. On demurrer to the petition.
Demurrer sustained, and alternative writ of mandate set aside and petition dismissed.
Dey Hoppaugh, Mark & Johnson, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Hammond & Thatcher, of Bountiful, Homer Holmgren, of Salt Lake City, for defendant.
Plaintiff has filed a verified petition praying that an alternative writ of mandate issue out of this court directing the defendant to receive bonds and interest coupons of the Bonneville Irrigation District and to issue therefor a receipt discharging the lands of petitioner from future levy of taxes and assessments for the payment of the bonds of the district or that he show cause why he has not done so. In response to the writ, defendant demurred to the petition upon the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action. At the time of the oral argument, it was stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the allegations of the petition are admitted to be an accurate statement of the facts, not only for the purpose of the demurrer, but also for the purpose of disposing of the cause on merits.
The sole question which divides the parties involves the constitutionality of, or the construction which should be given to, chapter 68, p. 90, § 20, Laws of Utah 1929. The facts out of which this controversy arose are as follows: The Bonneville Irrigation District was organized in 1920 under the provisions of chapter 68, Laws Utah 1919. In 1920 the district issued and sold bonds in the amount of $ 600,000. Such bonds were in ten series of different dates of maturity, one-tenth thereof maturing December 1, 1931, and one-tenth maturing December 1st of each year thereafter to and including December 1, 1940. All of the bonds so issued and sold were of the denomination of $ 1,000 each and bore interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum payable on the first day of June and December of each year. In 1921, additional bonds of the district were issued and sold in the sum of $ 125,000. Such bonds were issued in ten series of different dates of maturity, one-tenth thereof maturing on December 1, 1932, and one-tenth thereof maturing on the first day of December of each year thereafter to and including the first day of December, 1941. All of the second issue of bonds are of the same denomination and bear the same rate of interest as the first issue.
Plaintiff is the owner of four tracts of land within the Bonneville Irrigation District. In order to pay his proportion of the total issue of bonds of the district based on the proportion of his water allotments to the final water allotments of the district, petitioner must pay $ 1,143.50 on each of two tracts of land, $ 923.36 on one tract of land, and $ 2,503.48 on the other tract, making a total of $ 5,713.84 for the four tracts of land so owned by him. It is further alleged in the petition:
The Bonneville Irrigation District was organized and all of the bonds involved in this controversy were issued and sold pursuant to the provisions of chapter 68, Laws of Utah 1919. The act provides for the organization of irrigation districts and for the allotment of water to lands therein. When final allotments of water are made to the lands within a district, such final allotments are by the act made the basis for all assessments levied to secure funds for the district. Section 14 of the act provides for the issuance of such bonds as may be necessary for acquiring water rights, canals, reservoirs, etc. If the original issue is insufficient, additional bonds may be issued, in which event the original bonds "shall be a prior lien to that of any subsequent bond issue."
Section 16 provides that bonds and interest thereon issued and sold by the district shall be paid by revenue derived from annual assessment on the real property of the district, and that the property of the district shall be and remain liable to be assessed for such payments.
Section 17 makes it the duty of the board of directors on or before March 1st of each year to determine the amount of money that will be required to meet the obligations of the district for the current year including such amount as will be necessary to pay interest on all outstanding bonds and the principal of all maturing bonds of the district, together with such additional amounts as may be necessary to meet any deficiency theretofore incurred.
Section 18 makes it the duty of the county assessor to assess the lands within the district on the basis of value per acre foot on the water allotted to the land and to make return thereof to the county commissioners.
Section 19 makes it the duty of the county commissioners to levy an assessment on the lands within the district to provide the amount of money required by the district plus 15 per cent to cover delinquencies.
In 1929, section 20 of the Laws of Utah 1919, chap. 68, was amended by adding thereto the following provision:
"Any land owner may tender and the county treasurer shall receive money or bonds and/or coupons of the district equaling such land owner's proportion of the total issue of bonds of the district, with interest to maturity, based on the proportion of the land owner's water allotment to the total final water allotment of the district, and taxes for payment of the bonds or interest on the bonds of the district shall not thereafter be levied against such land owner," Laws 1929, c. 68, p. 90, § 20.
This controversy is concerning the effect, if any, which may be given, within constitutional limitations, to the addition made to the original act by the amendment of 1929 above quoted. It is defendant's contention that the amendment may not be given any effect because it impairs the contract theretofore entered into between the Bonneville Irrigation District, the landowners of the district, and the purchasers of the bonds of the district. He contends that the amendment, if given effect, would impair such contract in the following particulars: (1) By favoring a bondholder who owns land within the district to the disadvantage of a bondholder who is not a landowner; (2) by permitting a landowner who is also a bondholder to anticipate and to discharge his future assessments and thus prevent his land from being assessed for the use and benefit of the remaining bondholders; (3) by allowing a land and bondholder to pay all of his bond fund tax obligations with bonds not yet matured and thereby make it impossible for the district to pay its bonds at maturity and (4) by relieving the landowner who pays his total obligations on the bonds of the district from the payment of the 15 per cent which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lucas
...... Sections 4641, 5979, 5980 and 10116, Revised Statutes 1929,. as amended. Miller Land & Lbr. Co. v. Gerley, 137. Ark. 146, 208 S.W. 426; Salter" v. Nelson, 85 Utah 460, 39. P.2d 1061. . . . OPINION . [153 S.W.2d 11] . . Gantt,. C. J. . . \xC2"......
-
State v. Swenson
...interpretations of a statute, that interpretation will be favored which renders the statute constitutional. Salter v. Nelson, 85 Utah 460, 467, 39 P.2d 1061, 1064 (1935); see also State v. Tebbs, 786 P.2d 775, 779 (Utah Ct.App.1990). On remand, we direct that if defendant produces some evid......
-
Dalton v. Redd
...will be observed from the foregoing summary of the allegations of the petition that what was said and decided in the case of Salter v. Nelson (Utah) 39 P.2d 1061, controlling here. In this case the district has but one outstanding issue of bonds. Therefore what was said in the former case w......