State ex rel. Foster v. Ritch
| Decision Date | 22 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 3471.,3471. |
| Citation | 49 Mont. 155 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. FOSTER v. RITCH ET AL. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original proceedings in Supreme Court by the State of Montana, on the relation of C. A. Foster, against John B. Ritch and others as Board of Commissioners appointed to adjust the indebtedness and property of Valley and Sheridan Counties, upon the creation of Sheridan County. Application dismissed.
Galen & Mettler, of Helena, for relator.
D. M. Kelly, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Alvord and C. S. Wagner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
Upon the creation of Sheridan county from a portion of Valley county, the commission appointed by the Governor to adjust the property rights and indebtedness reported that the new county owed the old one $108,436.98. This proceeding was instituted by a resident taxpayer of Sheridan county to compel the commission to reassemble and to reapportion the indebtedness. The ground of complaint is that, notwithstanding there were “in Valley county, Mont., divers and sundry expensive steel bridges, aggregating in value at that time more than $162,000, and there were then located in Sheridan county bridges aggregating in value not to exceed the sum of $54,000,” the commission declined to consider the value of these bridges in determining the net indebtedness of Valley county and the proportion thereof properly chargeable to Sheridan county.
The only question for determination upon this application is whether “bridges” are to be deemed county property, within the meaning of that term as used in section 7, chapter 112, Laws of 1911, and their value to be ascertained and employed in the final adjustment of the property rights and liabilities of the old county and the new one. We are not furnished any information by this application as to the character of the bridges referred to, or the source from which the funds employed in their construction were obtained. The description is in the most general terms, and, in the same way we say that bridges, generally speaking, are not such county property as that their value shall enter into consideration in the adjustment of the indebtedness of the old county with the new one. A bridge is to be treated as but a portion of a public highway. Reid v. Lincoln County, 46 Mont. 31, 125 Pac. 429;State ex rel. Horsley v. Carbon County, 38 Utah, 563, 114 Pac. 522;Independent Highway Dist. v. Ada County, 24 Idaho, 416, 134 Pac. 542. Indeed, that question is settled by our own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pub. Lands Access Ass'n, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Madison Cnty.
...as bridges and the like, become a part of them, and as much of public right as the highways themselves."); State ex rel. Foster v. Ritch, 49 Mont. 155, 156-57, 140 P. 731, 731 (1914) ("A bridge is to be treated as but a portion of a public highway.") A bridge includes "all appurtenances, ad......
-
Pub. Land/Water Access Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones
...ex rel. Donlan v. Bd. of Com'rs of Sanders County, 49 Mont. 517, 522–23, 143 P. 984, 985 (1914) (citing State ex rel. Foster v. Ritch, 49 Mont. 155, 156–57, 140 P. 731, 731 (1914)). Given the circumstances existing at the time, Jones's unilateral intent that the bridge not be used by the pu......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. in and for Lewis and Clark County
... ... state. State ex rel. Judith Basin County v. Poland, ... 61 Mont. 600, 203 P. 352, 354; State ex rel. Foster v ... Ritch, 49 Mont. 155, 140 P. 731; State ex rel ... Furnish v. Mullendore, 53 Mont. 109, 161 P. 949; ... State ex rel. Donlan v. Board ... ...
-
Rex Twp. v. Bailey Twp.
...they are located. In support of these contentions, counsel cites State ex rel. Montrail County v. Amundson, 1118; State ex rel. Foster v. Ritch, 49 Mont. 155, 140 P. 731; State ex rel. Judith Basin County v. Poland, 61 Mont. 600, 203 P. In the North Dakota case, the language construed was “......