The herald., 1897-02-17
NO PREFERENCE SHOWN
No Rule of Priority to Apply to Irrigation
District Bonds

No Rule of Priority to Apply to Irrigation
District Bonds
Judge Shaw handed down an opinion
yesterday in the case of B. F. Carter VS..
H. P. Sweet wherein an interesting
point relative to the law governing ir
rigaton districts in this state was pass
ed upon.
The sole question presented for deci-
sion was whether or not in the case of an
irrigation district, it, at a time when
there was no money in the bond fund of
the district, the holder of coupon paya-
BILE out of such fund should present it
to the treasurer of the district for pay
ment and have such demand registered,
he would thereby gain right to prior
ity of payment out of money subsequent
! ly coming into such bond fund over the
holders of other coupons of the same
class, which were presented at a later
date than his own.
The court, in discussing the question,
makes reference to the case of a county
warrant as familiar one. and tending
to create the impression that there is a
general rule that such a priority is OBJ
tanned by presentation in case of all pub
lie corporations. But in that case, he
says, there is a special provision of the
statute giving such priority, declaring
that warrants must be paid in the order
of their presentation In the law con-
cerning irrigation districts there is no
similar provision. The only language
relating to payment of coupons is: Up
on presentation of the coupon due to the
treasurer he shall pay the same from the
/ bond fund" This the court considers
does not give priority of right to pay
ment. If the presentation of coupon
4 when the fund was empty had the ef-
! feet of creating such priority of right
the authority for it must be found in
+ some general principle of law and not
| in the statute relating to irrigation dis
tricts.
The plaintiff Sweet contended that
such a general principle exists but the
court holds that it may be true that if
a statute were enacted requiring that
| such coupons be paid in the order of their
| presentation, it would in many instances
result in a more equitable and just dis
position of the fund where there is de-
ficiency. But the same. the court fur
ther says, can be said of the case of all
natural persons who owe debts and do
not have the funds on hand at the time
of demand with which to pay them, and
yet they have the right to prefer one
creditor over the other and pay one to
the exclusion of the others, and nothing
! less than the insolvency law can take
! away this right.
/ Il can perceive no reason" concludes
| the court, why any distinction should
be made in this respect between corpora
tions and any other class of persons sub
ject to the laws. In most states of the
union there is a statute providing that
such claims against counties and cities
shall be paid in the order of their pre-
sentation. This fact goes far to show
that the opinion is almost universal that
a statute is necessary to give such pri-
ority. There being no statute to that
effect relating to irrigation districts,
am of the opinion that such priority does
not exist in favor Of the plaintiff The
complaint, therefore, does not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. and the demurrer to it should be
] sustained"