Tingwall v. King Hill Irrigation District
| Decision Date | 07 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 7028 and 7029 |
| Citation | 64 Idaho 207,129 P.2d 898 |
| Parties | A. W. TINGWALL, Respondent, v. KING HILL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a corporation, Appellant. EMMA ROSETTA DUFFY, Respondent, v. KING HILL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a corporation, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied October 26, 1942.
WATER AND WATER COURSES-IRRIGATION DISTRICT-CORPORATIONS-SERVICE OF PROCESS.
An irrigation district is a "corporation," within statute providing for service of process in suit against corporation upon president, secretary, cashier, or managing agent thereof, and service of process is not required to be made upon members of district's board of directors personally. (I.C.A., sec. 5-507, subds. 1, 7.)
Rehearing denied October 26, 1942.
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Elmore County. Honorable Charles F. Koelsch, District Judge.
Motions to set aside certain judgments. From orders, respectively denying the motions, king Hill Irrigation District appeals. Affirmed.
Orders affirmed, with costs to respondents.
Eugene H. Anderson and Charles F. Reddoch for appellants.
Service of process in each case involved herein was made contrary to the mandatory provisions of I.C.A., sec. 5-507, and conferred no jurisdiction upon the court. (I.C.A. sec. 5-507.)
An irrigation district is not a corporation within the meaning of subd. 1, sec. 5-507, I.C.A., so as to authorize service of process upon the president or secretary of the board of directors of such district. (I.C.A., sec. 29-101; Rev. St 1887, sec. 2575; Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377, 23 P.2d 720.)
James and James for respondents.
An irrigation district is a corporation. Moreover under the Idaho Statute it is a corporation of a quasi public nature but owning and operating its irrigation system is a proprietary rather than public capacity. (Sudler, Wegener and Co. v. Hillsdale Irr. Dist., 123 P.2d 420 (Idaho) (4); Colburn v. Wilson, 27 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; Payette Heights Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 133 P. 907, 24 Idaho 321.)
When there is no express statutory method for serving summons upon a corporation, the service should be made upon some officer or agent of the corporation who is capable of receiving notice for it in respect of the matter of the suit. (See notes in 61 Am. St. Rep., p. 490; 19 C.J.S. 993, sec. 1309 (69).
At common law the process is served upon the president or principal officer of the corporation. (19 C.J.S., p. 995, sec. 1312 (9).
May 13, 1926, the Tingwall Stores Company, a corporation, recovered a judgment against the King Hill Irrigation District for the sum of $ 5,579.12. May 5, 1932, A. W. Tingwall, to whom the judgment had been assigned, commenced an action against the district to revive or renew the judgment. Summons thereupon issued and later, and on the 17th day of May, 1932, was served upon the King Hill Irrigation District by delivering to and leaving with its President and Secretary, respectively, a copy of the summons together with a copy of the complaint. September 12, 1932, the district, having failed to appear or answer, its default was entered. September 19, 1932, judgment was entered in favor of Tingwall and against the district for the sum of $ 8,052.52. December 13, 1941, the district filed a motion in the action in which the judgment was recovered to set it aside. The motion was heard December 27, 1941 and denied January 12, 1942. March 6, 1942, the district prosecuted an appeal from the order to this court.
In the case of Emma Rosetta Duffy against the district, it appears that March 29, 1931, a judgment was rendered in favor of her husband, R. R. Duffy, against the district for the sum of $ 3,401.17, and that following the rendition and entry of the judgment, Duffy died, and that thereafter, in appropriate proceedings, the judgment was decreed to his widow, Emma Rosetta Duffy. May 17, 1937, she commenced an action to revive or renew the judgment. Upon the filing of the complaint, summons issued and service was made on the district by delivering to and leaving with its president, a copy of the summons, together with a copy of the complaint. January 8, 1937, the District, having failed to appear or answer, its default was entered. June 14, 1937, judgment was entered in favor of Emma Rosetta Duffy against the district for the sum of $ 4,847.40. December 13, 1941, the district moved to vacate the Duffy judgment. January 12, 1942, the motion was denied. March 6, 1942, the district appealed to this court from the order denying its motion.
The question presented on these appeals being identical, the cases, by stipulation of the parties and an order of this court, were consolidated.
The single, decisive question presented for determination here, is: In serving an irrigation district with process, must the process, in order to give the court jurisdiction of the district, be delivered to and left with the individual members of the board; or must the process be served upon the president or secretary of the district? The answer to that question depends upon the construction of the pertinent provisions of sec. 5-507, I.C.A. They are:
That process must be delivered to and left with the president, secretary, cashier or managing agent of corporations formed under the laws of this state, in a suit against any such corporation, must be conceded, because it is so expressly provided and required in language free from doubt or ambiguity. But it is insisted that "an Irrigation District is not a corporation within the meaning of subd. 1, sec. 5-507, I.C.A.", and that "service of process in each case involved herein was made contrary to the mandatory provisions of I.C.A., sec. 5-507, and conferred no jurisdiction upon the court."
If an irrigation district is a corporation, it must necessarily follow that service must be made upon it as required by subd. 1 of sec. 5-507, supra, in that such subdivision applies to and covers all corporations formed under the laws of this state, without a single exception. Therefore, is an irrigation district a corporation?
An examination discloses that many definitions of irrigation districts have been given and made by this court. An irrigation district has been defined to be, for instance "quasi-public corporation", "quasi-public or municipal corporation", "quasi-municipal corporation", and a "municipal corporation". In Lewiston Orchards Irr. Dist. v. Gilmore, 53 Idaho 377, 23 P.2d 720, the Idaho cases defining irrigation districts are reviewed and discussed at great length. At the conclusion of the re-examination of the cases it was held that "the primary purpose of an irrigation district is limited to the conducting of its business for the private benefit of the land owners within the district by the acquisition of water rights and the irrigation of lands within its boundaries; and that the land owners within the district are the members of the corporation, control its affairs, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial