State v. Catlin
| Citation | 195 P. 628,33 Idaho 437 |
| Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. T. C. CATLIN, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1921 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
HERD DISTRICT-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTE.
A herd district cannot be legally created in this state without substantial compliance with all the statutory requirements governing such creation, and the fact of such compliance should affirmatively appear in the record of the proceedings of the board of commissioners.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.
Appellant was convicted on charge of unlawfully allowing cattle owned by him to run at large in a certain lawfully created herd district. Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to district court to dismiss action.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Chas M. Kahn, for Appellant.
Boards of county commissioners are only quasi-judicial tribunals with limited jurisdiction and can only act in strict compliance with statutes. (Gorman v. Board of Commrs., 1 Idaho 553; Prothero v. Board of County Commrs., 22 Idaho 602, 127 P. 175; Gooding Highway Dist. v. Idaho Irr. Dist., 30 Idaho 236, 164 P. 99.)
Petitions for road district, highways, etc., orders thereunder, and all proceedings must contain, substantially, statement of all facts required by statute, and if they do not, the board acquires no jurisdiction to act. (Canyon County v Toole, 9 Idaho 561, 75 P. 609; In re Grove Street, 61 Cal. 438.) This also applies to proceedings in connection with the creation of herd districts. (3 C. J 177, 178; Flowers v. Grant, 129 Ala. 275, 30 So. 94; Mayfield v. Court County Commrs., 148 Ala. 548, 41 So. 932; Commissioners' Court v. Holland, 177 Ala. 60, 58 So. 270; McKinney v. Commissioners' Court, 168 Ala. 191, 52 So. 756; Williams v. State, 7 Ala. App. 104, 61 So. 465; State ex rel. Sieler v. Virnig, 77 Wash. 502, 137 P. 1039.)
The jurisdiction of courts of limited jurisdiction must show affirmatively on the record. (Wharton, Criminal Ev., secs. 594, 830; Wharton, Evidence, sec. 1308; Gustavus v. Dahlmer, 163 N.Y.S. 132; Roth v. Union Nat. Bank, 58 Okla. 604, 160 P. 505; Lee v. Tonsor, 62 Okla. 14, 161 P. 804.)
T. A. Walters, Former Attorney General, M. H. Eustace, Assistant, R. L. Black, Attorney General, and J. L. Boone, Assistant, for Respondent.
Absence of things from the record not required by statute to appear thereon do not vitiate the proceedings. (Ex parte Allen, 31 Idaho 295, 170 P. 921; State v. Lottridge, 29 Idaho 53, 155 P. 487; Hack v. State, 141 Wis. 346, 124 N.W. 492, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 664, and note, p. 665; State v. Foster, 40 Iowa 303; Sims v. Milwaukee Land Co., 20 Idaho 513, 119 P. 37.)
DUNN, J. Rice, C. J., and McCarthy and Lee, JJ., concur. Budge, J., did not hear the argument nor take part in the decision of this case.
The defendant was tried in the district court of Ada county on the charge of unlawfully allowing cattle owned by him to run at large within a lawfully created herd district in said county. He was convicted and judgment entered requiring him to pay a fine of $ 100, with costs of prosecution. From this judgment the defendant has appealed.
Appellant has specified numerous errors, but the examination of one will be sufficient to dispose of this case.
Under the complaint on which appellant was tried it was necessary for the state to prove that the herd district in which the offense was alleged to have been committed was lawfully created. This the state failed to do. The law required that there should be posted within the proposed district three notices of the hearing, which must be held before said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andre v. Morrow
... ... , the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the California judgment was entitled to full faith and credit in the bankruptcy court and in the Idaho state courts, and "that to the extent the California Judgment create[d] a constructive trust upon the property in Idaho, as determined by the Idaho state ... This, however, is not in accordance with the later decisions of this court in State v. Catlin [33 Idaho 437, 195 P. 628] and Chapman v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. [29 Idaho 294, 158 P. 560], supra, which affirm the generally recognized ... ...
-
In re Segregation of School District No. 58 from Rural High School District No. 1
... ... 58, C. C. MILES et al., as Petitioners, and R. N. WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Nez Perce County, State of Idaho, and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Respondents Supreme Court of IdahoJuly 28, 1921 ... RURAL ... HIGH ... sufficient if such jurisdictional facts be proved on the ... hearing, as shown by the record. (State v. Catlin, ... 33 Idaho 437, 195 P. 628; North Carrollton v ... Carrollton, 113 Miss. 1, 73 So. 812; Sorknes v ... Board of County Commrs., 131 Minn. 79, ... ...
-
Telfer v. School Dist. No. 31 of Blaine County, 5602
... ... jurisdictional requirements were complied with. (Smith ... v. Canyon County, 39 Idaho 222, 226 P. 1070; State ... v. Catlin, 33 Idaho 437, 195 P. 628; In re Bonds of ... Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 27 Am. St. 106, 28 P ... 272, 14 L. R. A. 755; School ... ...
-
Smith v. Canyon County
...want of jurisdiction, the only remedy is by appeal. This, however, is not in accordance with the later decisions of this court in State v. Catlin and Chapman v. Pacific Ry. Co., supra, which affirm the generally recognized principle that jurisdictional questions, as distinguished from mere ......