The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-09
IRRIGATION ACT.
important Ruling of the
Supreme Court.
Directors Cannot Levy Assessments
in Excess of the Amounts Au-
thoriZed by Law.

The Supreme Court rendered decision OF
great importance to property-owners In lrriga'
llon districts yesterday. The ruling was the
result of an action commenced against +. ii.
Graham collector OF the Central Irrigation
district. by Herman Quint. who petitloned the
court to enjOn the collector from selling MS
lands, and the lands Of others similarly STU
ated, for assessments levied III Inc year 1857
Quint in his petition assailed the organization
of the district, which he insisted was Invalid
because the Supervisors acted without their
Jurisdiction In effecting it. On this point the
courts ruling was against The petitioner. lt
held that the district was public corporation,
formed under d general law Tor lhe general
welfare and it was mmaterlal 10 Qulnt s case
whether The organization was de facto or de
jure.
Ouint further insisted that he was entitled to
relief on the around tnat the levy OF Tue TAX
was at a rate greater than Is authorized oy LIE
Wright act The bonds Issued by ana OUT
standing against the district amounted 10
$4,000 and the amount OF money 10 DC
raised 10 pay the interest amounted 10 So4,-
400; yet The amount called for by the levy
against which QuinI complained exceeded that
sum by more than $4,000.
while the Views lie entertalns upon an
other branch of the case prevent the Dalntlli
from Ing the relief IN the ACTON desired,
said the court, "still the question mere pre-,
sented as TO the true construction OF section -
of the Wright act may be said TO be directly
involved in proper solution OF ms lltealioh;
and the question is not only new one, put Que
so important to both taxpayers ana corpora
lions that we deem IL advisable TO consider IL AT
the present time in order that these district
corporations in the future may so shape tneir
course as to keep within their powers under the
law.
This board OF directors is creature OF the
statute and 1t can do nothing unless authorized
by the statute. Ii exceeded It's power I'D making
this levy. The statute says II had the power ana
IL was its duty TO levy an assessment sumclenC 10
pay the annual interest. But here 1t exceeded
its power by leyying an assessment largely III
excess OF that amount. BY this seclioh Oh Ine
act certain burdens only could be cast upon tlle
land of the taxpayers of the district ana tneY
had The double right 10 insist upon rigid com
plant with this prOvIso of the statute Inc
board has no right TO assume that the TAX upon
any particular tract of land VIII not be pald
either by The owner or by sale Oh the lano IL.
self. The question Of the amount 10 De raised
Is not one Of DISCRETION, but OF pure iegal rlght.
Ii cannot be held that judicial discretion Is
vested in the board of directors TO NIX the levy
at any rate which IL might deem sufnclent 10
raise the amount necessary TO pay the ahnual
interest"
While the court decided that the levy was ex-
cessiVe and therefore unlawful IL helo tnat
QuiDt owed the distric. portion OF the TAX
levy on his own showing and could not be neard
III court OF equity until he had PAID the amount
which the board had right TO levy on MS
lana.