Case ID: or_82/html/0683-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mb. Justice Habbis", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on brief December 18, 1916)
    writ disallowed January 30, 1917.
    STATE ex Rel. v. MEHAFFEY.
    
    (162 Pac. 1068.)
    Drains — Drainage District Bonds — Statutes Repealed.
    1. Laws of 1915, Chapter 340, not effective when a drainage district adopted its by-law, but effective before its directors ordered an election to determine whether they could issue bonds, and relating to the organization of drainage districts and covering the field formerly covered by Sections 6126-6145, L. O. L., inclusive, as amended by Laws of 1911, Chapters 241, 250, and itself providing for the issuance of bonds and for what had been previously left to be done by the district through by-laws, though not dissolving drainage districts then in existence, was a substitute for and by implication repealed prior legislation, so that the district’s bonds were required to be issued thereunder.
    Drains — Drainage District — Legislation—Constitutional Provisions.
    2. Article XT, Section 2, of the Constitution, relating to the enactment of municipal charters, and Article IV, Section la, providing for the initiative and referendum on local, special and municipal laws, did not render drainage districts immune from statutes passed by the legislative assembly, so that the Assembly was empowered to enact' Laws of 1915, Chapter 340, relating to the organization of drainage districts and purporting to eover the matters formerly covered by Sections 6126-6145, L. O. L., inclusive, as amended by Laws of 1911, Chapters 241, 250.
    [As to effect of partial invalidity of statute relating to drains and sewers in municipalities, see note in Ann. Cas. 1916D, 76.]
    Original proceeding in Supreme Court.
    In Banc. Statement by Me. Justice Harris.
    This is an original proceeding by tbe State of Oregon, on tbe relation of M. Motscbenbacber and C. R. De Lap, directors of tbe Klamatb Drainage District in which an alternative writ of mandamus was issued out of this court directing A. A. Mehaffey to sign or to show cause for not signing certain bonds as secreta,ry of tbe Klamatb Drainage District. Tbe defendant answered by claiming that the bonds were not legally authorized. The Klamath Drainage District was organized on March 6, 1915, pursuant to Sections 6126 to 6145, L. O. L., inclusive, as amended by Chapters 241 and 250, Laws of 1911. The residents of the district held meetings on May 1 and 3,1915, and adopted by-laws for the election of directors, for the acquirement of real and personal property, for the assessment and collection of liens and for the issuance and sale of bonds. These by-laws were approved by the County Court on May 8, 1915. The board of directors adopted a resolution on January 15, 1916, ordering that an election be held for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of bonds to the amount of $100,000. The election was held on February 19, 1916, and the issuance of the bonds was authorized. On March 7, 1916, the directors passed a resolution declaring their intention to exercise the conferred authority by issuing bonds and on October 3, following, the “Board of Directors of said Klamath Drainage District by resolution, as provided by the by-laws of said district, declared the intention of the said board to sell ten thousand dollars worth of said bonds and ordered the defendant as secretary of the said Klamath Drainage District to prepare notice of such sale and publish same, ashing for proposals on said bonds.”
    The bonds which the directors are permitted to issue mature at different dates varying from “21 years from the date of issue” to “30 years from the date of issue.” The secretary places his refusal to sign the bonds on the ground that Chapter 340, Laws of 1915, repealed all prior legislation and that the bonds were illegal because not issued in compliance with the act of 1915.
    Judgment fob Defendant.
    
      For plaintiff there was a brief submitted over the names of Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General, and Mr. Charles J. Ferguson.
    
    For defendant there was a brief over the name of Mr. K. C. Merryman.
    
    
      
      On procedure for establishment of drains and sewers, see comprehensive note in 60 L. R. A. 161. Reporter.
    
   Mb. Justice Habbis

delivered the opinion of the court.

Chapter 340, Laws 1915, although passed by the legislative assembly and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, had not become effective when the drainage district adopted its by-laws; but the statute did become effective prior to January 15, 1916, the date on which the directors ordered that an election be held to determine whether the directors could issue bonds. No bonds were issued or even authorized before Chapter 340 became operative. In State v. Nyssa-Arcadia Drainage District, 80 Or. 524 (157 Pac. 804), we held that Chapter 340 was a substitute for and therefore by implication repealed prior legislation. A re-examination of the question confirms the conclusion announced in State v. Nyssa-Arcadia Drainage District. Chapter 340 has covered the field occupied by prior enactments. The legislative assembly has itself done by positive law all that it had previously left to be done by the district through mere by-laws. By the terms of Chapter 340, Laws 1915, the legislative assembly has itself provided for the issuance of bonds and the Klamath Drainage District must now be guided by the act of 1915. The new statute did not dissolve drainage districts then existing and consequently the corporate life of drainage districts was neither ended nor suspended nor interrupted.

The legislative assembly had the power to enact Chapter 340, Laws 1915. Section 2, Article XI, and section la of Article IV of the state Constitution do not render drainage districts immune from statutes passed by the legislative assembly. The Klamath Drainage District is governed by the latest statute and consequently bonds must be issued in compliance with Chapter 340, Laws 1915. State ex rel. v. Port of Astoria, 79 Or. 1 (154 Pac. 399); Rose v. Port of Portland, ante, p. 541 (162 Pac. 498).

The defendant is entitled to a judgment.

Judgment for Defendant,